Author: Babajanian Karo

Richard Hovannisian Delivers Keynote at Haigazian Conference in Beirut

By MassisPost
Updated: May 29, 2014

UCLA–Professor Richard Hovannisian was invited to give keynote address
at an international conference on the Armenian community of Lebanon.
The Conference, organized by the Armenian Diaspora Research Center
under the direction of Dr. Antranik Dakessian, took place on the
Haigazian campus in Beirut from June 14 through 16.

The conference was opened by Haigazian President Reverend Paul
Haidostian, who remained in attendance and participated throughout the
proceedings. In his address, Hovannisian combined academic and
personal elements, first by emphasizing the long history of the
Lebanese Armenian community and its essential role in preserving and
propagating Armenian language and culture throughout the entire
diasporan world. The Lebanese community, together with the Syrian
Armenian community, infused in young generations the concept of an
imagined Armenia, without the normal detractive aspects that may be
found in any actual state. That dedication and commitment to the ideal
inspired and still continues to inspire the generations.

Professor Hovannisian then reflected upon the Lebanon that he
discovered and which became his home for a year in the mid-1950s, with
its Armenian-speaking population of all ages and its vibrant schools
and institutions. There, he experienced for the first time Armenian as
a living language, not just that of a generation of aging genocide
survivors. Through a power point presentation, he captivated the
audience by taking them back to the familiar sites of Lebanon before
the tragic civil war in the 1970s and its regrettable massive exodus.

Papers during the three day conference were given by scholars from
Lebanon, Syria, Armenia, Belorussia, France, and the United States.
Hovannisian had the pleasure in the final session of moderating and
commenting on a panel of talented, promising young Armenian scholars,
whose research, data, organization and delivery were most impressive.

BELGIUM, NETHERLANDS, AND USA

Prior to the Haigazian conference, Richard and Vartiter were in
Belgium and the Netherlands for a series of talks. On May 9, an
evening presentation was organized in the newly refurbished Hay Dun/La
Maison arménienne in Brussels in a dinner program organized by a
committee headed by Mr. Andre Gumuchdjian. On May 10, Hovannisian
spoke in Amsterdam on the final stages of the Armenian Genocide up to
the destruction of Christian Smyrna. The event was held under the
auspices of the Abovian Society of Holland in the newly renovated
historic Armenian Church of the Holy Spirit,. Mato Hakhverdian and
Inge Drost served as the coordinators. The following day, May 11,
Richard and Vartiter Hovannisian were in the Dutch town of Almelo,
near the German border for a lecture following services in the Saint
Gregory the Illuminator Church of the city, which has seen a large
influx of Armenians from southeastern Turkey, Iraq, and Armenia. The
community recently dedicated a large Armenian Genocide memorial on the
large wooded property. Mr. Harout Palanjian of the Holland AGBU
introduced the speaker, who was also welcomed by Armenia’s Ambassador
to the Netherlands, the Honorable Dziunik Aghajanyan.

Flying from Beirut to Chicago on May 17, Richard and Vartiter
Hovannisian went directly to a dinner reception at the spacious home
of Mrs. Arpy Seferian as part of the Hairenik Association’s launch of
its e-book series, starting with Voices from the Past. Introduced by
Antranig Kasparian, Hovannisian reflected upon some of the titans whom
he had come to know in his younger years, including Simon Vratzian,
Dro Kanayan, Goms (Vahan Papazian), Garo Sassouni, Reuben Darbinian,
the Patriarchs of Constantinople Karekin and Shnork, Locum Tenens of
the Cilician Catholicosate Khat Achabayan, a young vartabed named
Karekin, who would go on to become Catholicos, and His Holinesses
Vazken, Zareh, and Khoren. In Chicago, too, Hovannisian showed power
point images of Lebanon, when much of the intellectual and cultural
life was still centered in West Beirut, and he offered a visual tour
from the blue Mediterranean and the American University of Beirut
through the bourg and souks, the shanty town of Karantina, Nor Hajin,
Bourdj-Hamoud, Antelias, Bikfaya, and Anjar, which then was still
dependent on kerosene lamps for lighting.

Richard Hovannisian will be in Watertown, Massachusetts on Saturday,
June 14, under the auspices of the Armenian Library and Museum of
Armenia (ALMA) to present his latest publication, Armenian
Kesaria/Kayseri and Cappadocia. In Burbank, California on June 24, he
will lead off a two-day Facing History and Ourselves teacher institute
on the Armenian Genocide, and on June 25 he will offer his Kesaria
presentation in the Glendale Public Library with the joint sponorship
of the Nor Serount, Tekeyan, and Hamazkayin cultural associations and
arrangements by Armenian Outreach Coordinator Elizabeth Grigorian.

RESOLUTION OF THE KARABAKH CONFLICT IS NOT POSSIBLE BY CONCESSIONS TO RUSSIA

Turan Information Agency, Azerbaijan
May 23, 2014 Friday

Baku/23.05.14/Turan: “Center of National Strategic Thought” prepared
an analytical report in connection with the settlement of the Karabakh
conflict titled “Karabakh problem in the new geopolitical situation :
threats and ways.”

The document was discussed on May 23 “Crisis Round” organized by the
headquarters of the party “Musavat”. The discussions were attended
by opposition politicians, experts and civil society activists.

According to the authors of the document, “an attempt to neo-imperial
policy of Russia poses a threat to Azerbaijan, forming the world and
parties to the conflict a new approach that needs to be aligned with
national and state interests of Azerbaijan.”

The authors believe that, “despite how long the current political
situation will last one should not , one can not deviate from the
national position , emerging in the course of solving the problem.”

It was noted that the unresolved problems is due to the continuing
occupation policy of Armenia . To solve the problem it is necessary
to withdraw the Armenian forces from Azerbaijani territories and the
restoration of Azerbaijan’s sovereign rights throughout the country.

If this issue is so resolved, then the rest problems can be solved
through negotiations and through a fair decision. Until the Azerbaijani
territories are occupied no one should undertake the obligation of
non-use of weapons .

One should not agree on the use of troops as peacekeepers in states
that do not recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan . We
cannot allow the use of the Karabakh issue as a tool in domestic
relations. Issue of territorial integrity of the country should not
be solved on the basis of a referendum held in any region of the
country or on any ethnic basis.

Karabakh conflict is considered to be an ongoing factor hindering the
development of democracy and socio-economic development in the region.

The document’s authors consider it impossible to solve the Karabakh
problem by making some concessions to Russia. Itself, this assumption
can be seen as a provocation against Azerbaijan. The conventional idea
that the key to solving the Karabakh problem is , in the Kremlin ,
the document is considered as a ” training people to defeat .”

The document’s authors recommend to rethink the concept of military
doctrine. They justify this recommendation the fact of occupation of
the Crimea Russia, believing that it is not recognizing the national
territory of the Kremlin.

To change the status quo authors suggest antiterrorist measures around
Nagorno Karabakh. It is also proposed a revision of the ceasefire. To
resolve the issue in favor of the official Baku Azerbaijan offer
democratic reforms.

Analytical report was adopted as a basis and will be finalized taking
into account the comments and suggestions voiced. -05D04-

CRISIS TABLE: THE SOLUTION TO THE KARABAKH PROBLEM IS THROUGH NATIONAL UNITY

Turan Information Agency, Azerbaijan
May 23, 2014 Friday

Baku/25.05.14/Turan: “Crisis Table: Karabakh” of the National Strategy
Center on the problem of settlement of the Karabakh conflict took place
on Friday at the headquarters of Musavat Party. The discussions were
held on the basis of an analytical report prepared by the Center ”
Karabakh problem in the new geopolitical conditions: threats and ways.”

Chairman presented the report of the People’s Party, Panah Hussein,
and noted the main points affecting the current state of the
Karabakh conflict. Primarily, this is a geopolitical changes, which
is a reflection of the Ukrainian crisis and other challenges. He
also noted that as a participant in the conflict, Armenia became an
outspoken Russian satellite , conducting an aggressive foreign policy
. Another problem is called growth decadent sentiments in Azerbaijan,
when more people are leaning towards the need to resolve the conflict,
under the protection of Russia.

The report notes that there has been a change in the process of
settlement of the status quo and the growing influence of the conflict
on the security of Azerbaijan. An important aim of the change is
seen avoiding the status quo and a policy in favor of Azerbaijan
, which main objective is to achieve national position on how to
address the conflict. To do this, the authors of the report believe
it necessary to admit the first thing that is not an ethnic conflict
and occupation, with the assistance of Russia, and second, de jure and
de facto recognize the territorial integrity, and above all solution
to the conflict can be solely on the basis of territorial integrity.

Panah Hussein said that the independence of Karabakh can not be a
subject of discussion , and the conflict must be resolved politically,
which requires: Change the configuration and go from co-chair to the
format of the conference on Karabakh to suspend participation in the
OSCE Minsk Group , to prepare for a military solution to the issue
and start deep democratic reforms, which are the most effective means
of national security.

Chairman of the party “Liberty”, Ahmed Oruj, offered a scientific
approach that would simulate the situation and develop a concept of
the settlement. Oruc also called for national unity, without which
it is not possible to address this issue , including military means.

Former Interior Minister, Iskander Hamidov, put forward the idea of a
military solution to the conflict, and pointed out the similarity of
the Karabakh conflict and the Crimea , as both were annexed, and the
world has recognized the annexation of the Crimea.

Head of the party “Musavat”, Isa Gambar, said that to solve the
conflict a national will is required, which can be generated only
through discussion and debate on many issues. ” If Azerbaijan becomes
part of the democratic world, the view of the Karabakh conflict will
be the same as the annexation of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Crimea,
Gambar said , noting – We must prepare for this .”

Report would be adopted as the basis for further discussions and
completion as a final document .

“Crisis table” as the format of discussions on current issues,
was nominated by the Centre for Thought and National Strategy, that
unites politician and experts. Previous “Crisis table” was devoted
to the Russian threat in light of the Ukrainian events. -0-

RECOGNISING GENOCIDE: PART ONE

Neos Kosmos, The Hellenic Perspective, Australia
May 30 2014

Here is a question for the gentle reader: How many countries around
the world do not recognise FYROM as Macedonia?

Dean Kalimniou

Here is a question for the gentle reader: How many countries around
the world do not recognise FYROM as Macedonia? The answer is a mere
seventeen. On the other hand, some one hundred and thirty three
countries do recognise FYROM as Macedonia with a good deal many
deciding to take no part in the naming dispute. The reason for this
statistic will become clear hopefully, as this diatribe progresses.

The former senator Bob Carr, when premier of New South Wales,
personally recognised the Armenian genocide. He wrote several letters
in which he referred to the genocide as a genocide and a crime against
humanity and argued that Turkey must apologise. Last year, in the wake
of the Parliament of New South Wales recognising the Armenian, Assyrian
and Pontian genocide, in the guise foreign minister of Australia,
Bob Carr, when asked, commented that Australia had no stance on the
issue. And this from someone who was previously very vocal in his
recognition. Similarly, Armenian-Australian activists in particular
are dismayed at the Liberal government’s retreat from the unequivocal
position held by many of its prominent members while in opposition.

These two ostensibly disparate fact bytes are in fact connected when
it is considered that, up until now, campaigners of the recognition
of the genocide of the Christian peoples of Anatolia are convinced
that genocide recognition is linked to the domino effect – that is,
that if enough Australian states recognise the genocide, then the
Commonwealth of Australia will recognise the genocide and if the
Commonwealth of Australia recognises the genocide then other countries
inevitably shall follow suit. If the vast majority of countries around
the world recognise the genocide, then the pressure on Turkey to do
the same will be so inexorably great that it will have absolutely no
other choice than to recognise the genocide, crushed as it will be,
under the weight of global public opinion.

However, the Macedonian example above appears to indicate that in
reality, the dynamic of lobbies and pressure groups are complex and
calculations of domino effects are far from simple. To wit: Even if
Greece is the last country left alone in the world, in refusing to
allow FYROM to appropriate the term Macedonia, it will conceivably, not
bow to world opinion and afford FYROM the recognition it seeks, both
for domestic reasons and also as a matter of principle. As a corollary,
it is reasonable to assume that even if the entire world recognises
the genocide, Turkey will not, solely for fear of being isolated in
the issue and in absence of other intervening considerations.

Given the above, though well meaning, committed and energetic,
it is not unreasonable to suggest that if genocide campaigners are
determined that Turkey should recognise the Genocide, (rather than
just creating global public awareness, which is also intrinsically
important ), then they are going about things in the wrong way,
focusing their efforts at the broader base rather than at the top.

After all, it is not as if the Western Powers were blissfully unaware
of the Genocide while it was being carried out. Thousands of newspaper
articles published in the Western world attest to its concern for
the victims and outrage against the perpetrators of this heinous crime.

Indeed, so moved were the Allies by the weight of western public
opinion that they issued the Ottomans the following warning in
1915: “In view of these 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, as well as those of
their agents who are implicated in such massacres.” The fact that
these same western powers, with the exception of France now choose
to resile from that recognition, should remind Genocide campaigners
that other, more profane considerations than justice and historical
proof are at play here. Consequently, it is logical to suppose that
if Turkey recognises the genocide of its own accord then all the
other countries would lose nothing in doing the same and finally,
justice will be afforded to the innocent victims of intolerance.

One often overlooked consideration that should be noted, is that to
some extent, Turkey has already recognised the genocide. It did so in
1919, after the war, when Constantinople was occupied by the Allies
and the Sultan’s administration was coerced to conduct War Crimes
Trials, an eerie and ineffective precursor of the Nuremberg Trials.

These trials focused extensively on the chain of command and the often
harrowing testimonies of Ottoman military officers, suggesting that
there truly was an organised plan to rid Anatolia of its Christian
population. Furthermore, ample evidence exists of Ottoman Muslims, even
army officers actively hiding their Christian neighbours, or refusing
to carry out deportation and slaughter orders. If no massacres took
place, what were these protected and privileged Muslims protecting
their Christian friends from?

Nonetheless, the Trials were problematic. Being held under occupation,
the judges were under the scrutiny of the occupying forces. Due
process did not exist, and there were gross absences of legal rights.

The Ottoman penal code did not acknowledge the right of
cross-examination. The decision was taken by evidence submitted during
the preparatory phase, the trial, and how the defendant presents his
defence. Of great concern was the fact that none of the presented
evidence was verified and validity of the evidence presented, such
as letters and orders have been in study, with some of them proving
to be forgeries. In some cases hearsay was an issue, though many
officials did testify to receiving orders to carry out the Genocide.

Nonetheless, during the trials, testimonies were not subjected to
cross-examination, and some of the materials were presented as
“anonymous court material.” So tainted by the absence of proper
process were the Trials that John de Robeck, the Commander-in-Chief,
of the Mediterranean forces stated that “its findings cannot be held
of any account at all.”

It comes as no surprise that after the Ataturk regime assumed power,
the Military Trials were hushed up, denied and referred to as victor’s
justice. Events such as the ethnic cleansing of 15,000 native Greeks
from the Gallipoli peninsula were also covered up and it is only in
the context of the rediscovery of Australian contemporary accounts
of massacres that such information is now re-entering the popular
consciousness – a process that is being strenuously resisted by
the Turkish state, which has even sought to punish local Australian
politicians who are at the forefront of such endeavours.

The process of erasure seems to suggest that one cannot force an
unwilling nation to admit something it doesn’t want to admit to,
unless that force is sustained and tied to punishment, as was the case
with Nazi Germany, where the Allies, learning from their mistakes
in the Ottoman Trials, made a concerted effort in the Nuremberg
Trials to punish the perpetrators of the Holocaust. Failing the
imposition of external sanctions, the perpetrator nation needs to
mature and become ready to listen, before recognition of its deeds
is possible, domestically or otherwise. As of today, that maturity
has been late in coming, though the Turkish PM recently hazarded the
oblique opinion that the events that took place at the expense of the
Armenians were “our shared pain,” and that this “should not prevent
Turks and Armenians from establishing compassion and mutually humane
attitudes towards one another.” Coming from the same person who stated:
“We should all be ready and well-equipped so that the 1915 events can
be dealt in an objective, scientific and realistic way. The Armenian
diaspora is making its preparations to turn the events of 1915 into a
political campaign by [distorting] the historical reality. In contrast
to this political campaign, we will firmly stand against them by
highlighting historical and scientific data,” we can question the
motivation for the expression of such ostensibly moving sentiments.

Next week we will examine some of the obstacles impeding Genocide
recognition in modern Turkey.

*Dean Kalimniou is a Melbourne solicitor and freelance journalist.

WHERE THREE IS A CROWD

The Economist
May 30 2014

May 30th 2014, 12:50 by D.T. | MOSCOW

THE oversized table in Astana’s Palace of Independence could seat
delegations from at least 15 former Soviet republics. But it was only
set for three. Much to the disappointment of the assembled strongmen,
Ukraine–long seen as crucial to the party–didn’t show up.

Nonetheless, the three founding members of the customs union–Russia,
Belarus and Kazakhstan–signed a treaty on May 29th paving the way
for the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) to be wheeled out on January 1st.

Its resource-rich constituent economies have a GDP of $2.7 trillion
economy to support a population of 170m. The EEU was supposed to be a
counterweight to the European Union and the West. That is now looking
unlikely. Still its establishment will mark a diplomatic triumph for
Vladimir Putin.

It has been a nail-biter for the EEU over the past few months. The
leaders of Belarus and Kazakhstan, with their eyes on the violence in
Ukraine and Russia’s part in it, had put the brakes on a project that
many call Mr Putin’s attempt to rebuild the Soviet Union. Alexander
Lukashenko and Nursultan Nazarbayev, the presidents of Belarus and
Kazakhstan respectively, have shown concern that tying themselves to
an imperialistic Russia, whose economy has been subjected to economic
sanctions and is starting to drift into recession, may not be in
their best interests.

The membership of Ukraine, the second-largest of the 15 post-Soviet
states, was long seen as being needed to diversify the EEU. To some
extent it could have balanced the energy producers, and offset Russian
dominance. In the fall of 2013 Russian pressure on Ukraine to join the
EEU, and to snub a corresponding agreement with the European Union,
helped inspire the EuroMaidan protests that brought down Viktor
Yanukovych’s government and eventually spun into the strife that is
now roiling the east of Ukraine.

Mr Lukashenko was most direct: “We lost someone, Ukraine…for Ukraine,
the burden was too heavy,” as Reuters quoted him. “Sooner or later
the Ukrainian authorities will know where happiness is.”

Yet not everyone in Kazakhstan is happy. Outside the signing ceremony
in the country’s ostentatious new capital, police arrested dozens of
protesters who were wearing surgical masks and waving placards. Some
of their signs implored onlookers to “Protect Yourself from Russia’s
Imperial Virus!”

Almost a quarter of Kazakhstan’s population is ethnic Russian,
meaning Mr Putin’s pretext for annexing Crimea–that is, protecting
Russian nationals and people who speak Russian–could arguably apply
there, too.

Days before the three leaders sat down to sign the document, Kazakh
officials bragged that they had succeeded in keeping the final treaty
purely economic; they removed provisions for a common currency,
citizenship and border force. Mr Nazarbayev, who likes to trumpet his
country’s “multi-vector” foreign policy and enjoys hefty investment
from China, has said that Kazakhstan would not cede “one iota” of
sovereignty by joining the EEU.

That has the effect of underscoring questions about what exactly Mr
Nazarbayev signed. The final version of the 900-page treaty was not
published until after he put his name on it. The activists had called
for a referendum, but Mr Nazarbayev ignored them.

How the EEU’s customs union, which was founded in 2010, has benefited
Kazakhstan is also unclear. Kazakh businessmen complain that the
Russian market remains difficult to enter. Earlier this month,
the Eurasian Economic Commission, as it is called, said trade among
the three member-states had fallen nearly 13% in the first quarter,
year-on-year, according to the Russian daily Kommersant. The commission
said this was an anomaly, but it does draw attention to the effects a
slowing Russian economy will have on the other new members of the EEU.

Despite all this, the EEU as an alternative to the EU makes sense
for a certain type of post-Soviet leader. After all, most of them are
uninterested in political reform; no one is hounding them for change.

Mr Putin promises “a powerful and attractive economic development
centre, a major regional market” that will draw in “large-scale trade
from Europe and Asia.” At the very least, the treaty allows Mr Putin
to show the world he has alternatives to engagement with the West.

Two other formerly Soviet countries are undeterred by Russia’s
aggression. Unfortunately for the fledgling economic union, they
are among the poorest. Armenia has prepared to join at lightning
speed ever since President Serzh Sarkisian shocked EU negotiators
in September by announcing that his country too was backing out of
a proposed association agreement. Isolated by its festering military
conflict with neighbouring Azerbaijan, Armenia is dependent on Russia
for military and economic support.

Kyrgyzstan, which hopes to join by the end of the year and says it
has received promises of $1.2 billion in Russian help, has found the
customs union already choking its re-export trade of Chinese goods.

Rather than remain walled-off from its traditional buyers, Kyrgyzstan’s
president has said his country has little choice but to join.

That’s too bad. Russia is not omnipotent. A few days after Russian
energy giant Gazprom took over Kyrgyzstan’s gas network in April,
neighbouring Uzbekistan turned off the tap. The Uzbeks are said to
have been angered by Russia’s growing presence in Kyrgyzstan. So
southern Kyrgyzstan has been without gas since April 14th.

IN TURKEY, JOURNALISTS WORK WITH ‘ONE EYE CLOSED’

The Toronto Star, Canada
May 24, 2014 Saturday

ISTANBUL

Turkey is facing a press freedom crisis.

The scope was first revealed a year ago during violent protests in
Taksim Square. Thirty journalists were hurt – and dozens were fired
– for covering anti-government demonstrations against the planned
destruction of a patch of green space known as Gezi Park.

Many reputable news outlets self-censored their coverage, afraid of
a backlash from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government. CNN
Turk infamously broadcast a lengthy documentary on penguins during the
height of the riots. The penguin became a symbol of media censorship.

Today, Erdogan is once again the subject of mass protests.

The Soma mining disaster, which killed 301 people, has sparked
demonstrations over lax mine safety. As with Taksim, police have
viciously cracked down on mourners and protesters with tear gas,
water cannons and batons.

The actions of some “free” Turkish media outlets during Taksim was
unacceptable, says Posta journalist Nedim Sener, who spent nearly a
year in jail without charges over stories about government corruption.

“If you are scared as a journalist, this isn’t something you should be
doing,” Sener says at his tidy desk at the Posta newsroom in Istanbul.

“If you say you are afraid you are just lowering yourself. There is
big public support for journalists who speak the truth.”

Sener, an economics reporter, should know. He has been honoured
internationally for his commitment to protect the truth in Turkey
and he is revered by many of his colleagues for his bravery.

Sener was arrested in March 2011. He was conditionally released after
376 days in a tiny solitary cell that he describes as a “concrete
tomb.” He still faces a sentence of another 15 years in jail.

There are currently 11 journalists in prison in Turkey – most charged
with being terrorists – down from 50 at the end of last year, says
the Committee to Protect Journalists, a non-profit organization based
in New York City.

It’s a similar story in nearby Egypt, where three journalists –
including Canadian-Egyptian Mohamed Fahmy – are currently behind bars.

Like Sener, they have been charged with being terrorists.

Sener spent years investigating the 2007 murder of his friend Hrant
Dink, the managing editor of the bi-weekly Turkish-Armenian paper Agos.

After Sener published a book on Dink’s assassination in 2009,
he was charged by Turkish authorities for “revealing secrets” and
“attempting to influence a trial,” according to the Committee to
Protect Journalists.

While those charges were dismissed in 2010, officials soon came after
Sener once more, accusing him of being a terrorist sympathetic to a
group supposedly plotting to overthrow the government.

“The fight between the allies makes the truth come forward,” says
the tall, soft-spoken Sener.

Turkey is one of the most restrictive countries in the world to be a
journalist. For instance, if you cover a story about terrorism, it is
akin to aiding terrorists, says the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Turkish journalists worry that officials are listening to their phone
conversations and monitoring their emails.

The level of secrecy and control was apparent at the end of March
during regional elections. To stop chatter about leaked recordings of
government officials, Erdogan banned Twitter and shut down YouTube;
Internet access became intermittent. The Twitter ban was lifted
April 3 by Turkey’s constitutional court, but Erdogan would like it
reinstated. YouTube is still blocked.

“There are no secrets in Turkey,” one journalist told me. “They want
you to report with one eye closed.”

The government’s apparent persecution of journalists also extends to
the lawyers who defend them.

Istanbul lawyer Fehmi Hasanoglu was fired by NTV, one of Turkey’s most
prestigious news networks, after his boss got a call from authorities
demanding he and the other lawyers be let go for resisting government
instructions.

“I’m happy I was fired,” he says. “At this moment I wouldn’t want to
be representing a TV channel.”

Hasanoglu says when Erdogan’s AK Party was first elected in 2002,
people hoped the government would strengthen Turkey’s democracy.

“They gave us hope for democracy and freedom for the people. I am
a socialist-based person and for most of the socialists, we somehow
believed him.

“But when someone gets power, he forgets democracy and becomes a
dictator,” says Hasanoglu, airing his views at an Istanbul cafe.

Turkey has restrictive defamation laws and it is against the law to
insult the government or its institutions.

Hasanoglu was fired along with three other lawyers at the network. He
lost his job on Jan. 4, 2012.

“I wasn’t at the channel that day. I was in court. When I was finished
I phoned another lawyer and said, ‘It is late now, do you need me
there? Should I come to the channel?’ And she said, ‘There is no need
for you today, or tomorrow or the next day after that.’ I asked why
and she said, ‘We are all fired.’ ”

GRAPHIC: “When someone gets power, he forgets democracy and becomes a
dictator,” says Istanbul lawyer Fehmi Hasanoglu. “There is big public
support for journalists who speak the truth,” says Nedim Sener,
a reporter for Istanbul’s Posta newspaper. Sener was arrested and
charged with being a terrorist for reporting on government corruption.

A journalist is hit by a water cannon during an anti-government
demonstration in Istanbul in May. Turkey is one of most restrictive
countries in the world to be a journalist. Tanya Talaga/Toronto Star
Tanya Talaga/Toronto Star OZAN KOSE/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

PASADENA SALUTES ARMENIAN PRIDE, POWER AND PROGRESS AT ANCA TELETHON 2014 RECEPTION

Friday, May 30th, 2014

PASADENA–With the 2014 ANCA Telethon just days away, volunteers
and supporters gathered at the home of Hovig and Aida Dimejian for
the latest in a diverse series of receptions celebrating Armenian
American civic participation.

“Aida and Hovig have been with the ANCA every step of the way —
as leaders, as organizers, as go-to team members — always ready to
help ensure the success of any project we take on, and this evening’s
reception is no exception,” said ANCA Chairman Ken Hachikian, who
was on hand for the reception. “Their commitment – and the efforts
of all the ANCA Telethon event hosts – is a testament to the broad
reach and power of the ANCA grassroots movement in advancing our
collective cause.”

ANCA leaders at the local, regional and national level were on hand
for the event, along with leaders of various Armenian organizations
and community members from across southern California.

The ANCA Telethon 2014 is a nationwide fundraising campaign designed to
empower Armenian Americans, protect Armenia and promote the Armenian
Cause throughout the United States. The gathering in the Hollywood
Hills is part of a coordinated and major grassroots effort, featuring
community events and a social networking campaign that will lead
up to June 1, 2014, when the 6-hour telethon will be aired in major
markets across the United States. The ANCA Telethon 2014 will be on
air in New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, among other major
American cities, with full schedule and channel information slated
to be released in the coming weeks.

In support of the ANCA Telethon 2014, countless organizations,
volunteers, churches, community leaders, performing artists,
politicians will be coming together to highlight the successes of the
ANCA in advancing the Armenian Cause in Washington, DC and across the
United States. The telethon will feature several documentaries focused
on the work of the organization and the volunteers whose grassroots
efforts have made the ANCA a strong and universally respected voice
for the Armenian Cause.

ASTANA MEETING PROVED NEED FOR EQUAL RELATIONS BETWEEN ARMENIA AND NAGORNO-KARABAKH – ANDRIAS GHUKASYAN

22:05 * 30.05.14

In an interview with Tert.am, political scientist Andrias Ghukasyan
commented on the Astana meeting and said that it could not be a
surprise for the Armenian delegation.

According to him, Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan found himself in
a deadlock. The Astana meeting debunked the myth that Serzh Sargsyan
was forced to decide in favor of Armenia’s accession to the European
Economic Union.

Mr Ghukasyan, what is the reason for Kazakh President Nursultan
Nazabrayev reading out Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s letter,
saying that Armenia can join the Eurasian Economic Council without
Nagorno-Karabakh, similarly to its membership in the CIS. He thus
put Armenia’s president in an awkward situation and conveyed the
Azerbaijani president’s concern.

The fact is that Armenia cannot have international commitments or
acquire any right to any territory outside its borders. And the
fact is that no state or international organization has recognized
Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Armenia. Rather, as a result of this
negotiation format the world views Nagorno-Karabakh as part of
Azerbaijan. This fact was expected to come to light at one of the
stages of the process of Armenia’s accession to the Eurasian Economic
Union. This issue was discussed months ago, when Armenia applied for
accession to the Customs Union. It was noted that Armenia could join
the Customs Union within its boundaries. In this respect, President
Nazarbayev confirmed the reality. I do not think it was a surprise
for the Armenian delegation.

But does Russia form part of the Eurasian Economic Union within its
internationally recognized boundaries?

Yes, Kazakhstan and Belarus recognized the Crimea annexation as
Russia’s legal action.

That is, of importance is the recognition by the Eurasian Economic
Union founding states?

Yes, because neither Russia nor Kazakhstan or Belarus did not
recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Armenia. Moreover, they consider
Nagorno-Karabakh part of Azerbaijan. This problem was expected to
arise at the discussion of Armenia’s accession to the Eurasian Economic
Union. And Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian could not fail
to know what President Serzh Sargsyan would have to face.

What diplomatic solutions do you expect?

Serzh Sargsyan cannot recognize Nagorno-Karabakh because, as a
political figure, he gave his consent to all the principles that imply
Nagorno-Karabakh must be part of Azerbaijan and only after that get
a right to self-determination. I do not see any solution for Serzh
Sargsyan. He is in a deadlock.

Can Serzh Sargsyan decline the proposal to join the Eurasian Economic
Union?

Not that he can. Rather, the Astana meeting debunked the myth that
anyone had pressed Serzh Sargsyan. It showed that Armenia is of no
political or economic interest to the Eurasian Union and that Serzh
Sargsyan is not a political figure worthy of respect.

That is, Serzh Sargsyan’s counterparts did him a favor by showing
why Armenia cannot join the Eurasian Union?

I do not think they did him a favor. The Armenian delegation’s aim was
to conceal the problem. That is, the problem of Armenia’s borders. And
the attempt obviously failed, which was not a pleasant experience
for the Armenian delegation.

David Babayan, Spokesman for the President of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic (NKR), expressed concerns over the fact Armenia can join the
Eurasian Economic Union without Nagorno-Karabakh. On the other hand,
Spokesman for Armenia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tigran Balayan
has stated once more that no customs border can be established between
Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Do not you see any contradiction?

If we take a realistic view of the matter, Armenia has a $4bn foreign
debt now, with Nagorno-Karabakh’s debt being at least $1.5bn. Under
the circumstances, when Nagorno-Karabakh’s debt to Armenia is so
huge that it can hardly be paid off, the statement that a checkpoint
does not matter for Nagorno-Karabakh is untrue. This is of paramount
importance for us and a serious challenge for our people. Armenia is
the only state giving loans to Nagorno-Karabakh at interest rates. All
the other states granted money to Nagorno-Karabakh except for Armenia,
which is giving loans at interest rates to prevent Nagorno-Karabakh’s
independent economic and military development. And this reality is
boomeranging now. We see that the Robert Kocharyan-Serzh Sargsyan
model, which has been in effect for years, has caused great damage to
our national interests. This challenge suggests the need for serious
changes. All the relations between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh must
be specified for the two states to cooperate as equal entities. This
is not so now.

The recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh’s equal rights by Armenia is a task
of paramount importance. Russia followed this course by recognizing
South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Azerbaijani president will welcome
the decision because it will absolve him of the responsibility to
grant Nagorno-Karabakh the right to self-determination. But none
of Azerbaijan’s political forces is ready for that. One thing is
to recognize a fact, but quite another thing is to afford such an
opportunity.

Armenian News – Tert.am

WHAT IS STUCK IN PUTIN’S THROAT?

Hakob Badalyan, Political Commentator
Comments – Friday, 30 May 2014, 18:01

Astana has angered the vibrant society of Armenia. The latest brunt
to the nation’s reputation met a backlash but there also seems to be
misunderstanding, particularly of Serzh Sargsyan’s behavior.

He did not appear to be shocked, bewildered, panicky, stunned or
otherwise bothered. Moreover, he looked surprisingly indifferent.

Serzh Sargsyan listened to Aliyev’s letter as if it concerned
Kyrgyzstan, not Armenia.

Of course, there is a matter of adequacy, which is relative. On the
one hand, Sargsyan’s reaction is not adequate, on the other hand, it
is. From the point of view of the state, it is not adequate because
Serzh Sargsyan listed with a “nirvanaish” face to something that
illustrated at what dangerous crossroad Armenia has appeared after
the Customs U-turn of September 3.

>From the point of view of his personal-governmental interest, Serzh
Sargsyan’s “nirvana” was adequate because the issue that Aliyev
brought up is a problem for Putin. And Serzh Sargsyan’s face said:
“Why would I be bothered? Let Putin think.”

Due to Serzh Sargsyan’s policy not only Armenia but also Putin
encountered a dramatic issue. For Armenia this problem is not new.

Armenia regularly encounters such problems due to Serzh Sargsyan’s
policy or lack of policy, facing the fact of loss of sovereignty.

This is the first time Putin encountered the fact of loss of Armenia’s
sovereignty, realizing that by surrender of Armenia to Russia Serzh
Sargsyan has also delegated to Putin his responsibility for Armenia’s
problems. And now Putin has to respond to Aliyev and accept his
“condition” on Armenia.

For the time being, the essence of his condition is not quite clear.

Aliyev is speaking about the borders recognized by the United Nations
but it is not clear whether he requires just records or a BCP between
Armenia and Artsakh. Apparently, Aliyev will not achieve a BCP as
this would cause problems for itself. However, he will certainly try
to generate his condition and use it to make Moscow meet its claims,
especially that Nazarbayev is going to help him.

Putin has invaded Armenia and now he has to account for Armenia. What
is there he can do? Either satisfy Azerbaijan in some way to accept
Armenia to the Eurasian Union or not accept Armenia to the Eurasian
Union because it is not realistic to overcome this problem through
resolving the issue of Artsakh. This would cause a number of problems
with the West, Turkey, Iran, and even Azerbaijan.

It is not ruled out that Moscow will eventually draw some conclusions
and ask Serzh Sargsyan to be a little “independent” and resist or
consider replacing him with a viceroy who would resist a little.

– See more at:

SUIT IS FILED AGAINST LEYLA YUNUS IN AZERBAIJAN; HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST HAS MADE AN APPEAL

16:38 30/05/2014 >> REGION

The Investigation Department for Grave Crimes of Azerbaijani General
Prosecutor’s Office was filed a suit against Leyla Yunus, the human
rights defender, director of the Institute for Peace and Democracy,
Azerbaijani information agency “Salamnews” reports.

Human rights activist is charged with “money embezzlement, tax
evasion,” etc., Rashid Hajili the lawyer of Leyla Yunus, told.

“The prosecutors’ was unable to accuse me of spying, so now they try
to fabricate charges with financial crimes against me and other civil
society activists,” reads the letter written by Leyla Yunus.

She also noted that today, on May 29, at 10:05 investigator Ibrahim
Lemberansky from the Grave crimes investigation Department of General
Prosecutor Office phoned her and called her to the prosecutor’s
office. Human rights activist wrote that she refuses to go to the
prosecutor’s office, until she and her husband Arif Yunus are returned
their passport.

Azerbaijani portal “Haqqin.az” reports that Leyla Yunus has refused to
opened the door of her apartment for the employees of the Prosecutor
General’s Office, who had brought her the summons to the Investigation
Department for Grave Crimes.

It is reported that Yunus has made an appeal addressed to public
and to the media, which is disseminated in social networks. In her
address Leyla Yunus states that in the coming hours her apartment at
125 N.Narimanov avenue will be “attacked by the police.” She encourages
everyone to come to her house.

Note that in the evening of April 28 in the airport of Baku while
departing to Doha famous Azerbaijani human rights activist Leyla
Yunus and her husband conflictologist Arif Yunus were detained. They
intended to fly to Paris, then to Brussels by the invitation of EU
to participate in an international event. Leyla Yunus was taken to
the Department of Grave Crimes of Azerbaijani Prosecutor General’s
office for questioning, where she spent 9 hours. Her husband who was
detained with her was hospitalized in pre-infarction condition. Search
of Yunus’ apartment and IPD office was conducted.

Note that Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, Nils
Muiznieks, U.S. State Department, the U.S. Embassy in Azerbaijan and
human rights organizations, such as the Norwegian Helsinki Committee,
Human Rights Watch, Freedom House and the International Federation
of Human Rights Organizations (FIDH) have condemned the detention of
human rights activist Leyla Yunus in Baku.

Earlier in Baku the journalist of Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo
Rauf Mirkadirov was arrested. He was accused of conducting espionage
for Armenia.

Source: Panorama.am