Author: Babajanian Karo

KURDS COLLECT SIGNATURES IN YEREVAN FOR ABDULLAH OCALAN

06:16 PM | TODAY | POLITICS

Kurds in Armenia have launched collection of signatures in support
of Abdullah Ocalan, the jailed leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party
(PKK).

Gathered in front of Grigor Lusavoritch Church in Yerevan, the group
suggested that passers-by sign their petition calling for Ocalan’s
release.

“We cannot find peace as long as Ocalan is in prison. We have already
visited all marzes in Armenia. We call for Ocalan’s immediately release
not only in the name of the Kurdish people but everyone,” said Tamara
Chatoyan, a representative of the Kurdish community in Armenia.

The collection of signatures started in December 2012 and will continue
through March, 2013. Ocalan needs at least 5 mln signatures to be
set free.

“We have already gathered 5000 signatures in Armenia,” said the
group members.

Many of the passers-by did not know Abdullah Ocalan, who is serving
his sentence in Turkey but they willingly signed the petition.

Ocalan was sentenced to death for treason against the Turkish state in
1999 but whose sentence was commuted to life imprisonment when Turkey
was forced to abolish the death sentence as part of it’s application
to join the EU – and the Turkish government.

ANDRIAS GHUKASYAN CALLS FOR UNIFICATION

06:37 PM | TODAY | POLITICS

The Armenian Central Electoral Commission today released the final
results of the February 18 presidential election, declaring the leader
of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (HHK), Serzh Sargsyan,
the winner of last week’s vote.

“The CEC decision does not reflect the will of the society and is
not acceptable by most people,” Andrias Ghukasyan, one of the six
candidates challenging Serzh Sargsyan in the Feb. 18 vote, said in
a statement.

“I share the calls of the citizens protesting outside the CEC building
and declare that the decision was null and void starting from the
moment of its adoption. I also urge the presidential candidates, who
disagree with the results of fake elections and Serzh-Sargsyan’s phony
victory, to join efforts in order to invalidate the CEC decision.”

Andrias Ghukasyan was staging a hunger-strike outside the National
Academy of Sciences from January 21to February 19, demanding that
the incumbent be removed from the ballot and urging the authorities
to stop fake elections.

DECISION 2013: STUDENTS URGE BOYCOTT IN WAKE OF ELECTION

VOTE 2013 | 25.02.13 | 16:42

Photolure

By SIRANUYSH GEVORGYAN
ArmeniaNow reporter

Several hundred students of Armenia’s state universities and institutes
have declared an indefinite boycott of classes as an act of protest
against what they say was fraud in the February 18 presidential.

The students on strike are those who have given their votes and their
support to official runner up of the presidential election Raffi
Hovannisian. The oppositional candidate has been holding massive acts
of protest since February 19, claiming that he is the actual winner.

Students demand to “annul the election results and hold new elections”.

Chanting “Boycott to classes”, “We are the masters of our country”,
“Free, independent student” and with posters “You are taking the dead
to vote, to do what?”, students rallied for 20 minutes in front of
the Yerevan State University; some delivered speeches.

“We all know very well who has won in these elections. The factual
truth is that the people have won in this race. I urge all of you
to stand by our people; I’m calling upon you to join us,” Tigran
Ghazaryan, student at Yerevan State University of Economics, said
over a loudspeaker.

The stairway in front of the central building at Yerevan State
University (YSU) had several staff members of the university
administration watching the protest, as well as a great number of
police officers in the crowd, among and around the students.

“Either return to your offices and fulfill your duties, or – and
of course this option is more preferable – join our event,” said
Daniel Ionnisyan representing the youth wing of Heritage party under
Hovannisian’s leadership. He stressed that they are not holding a
demonstration, but simply making an appeal to boycott the classes;
and that’s up to each student to decide.

While the university management complained to the police that the
protest held in front of YSU interfered with classes, the boycotting
students pointed out that they had chosen to hold the event during
a break in classes so as to not interfere.

Gevorg Melkonyan, heading the Young University Students’ Union
and assistant to the YSU rector, criticized the students for their
actions. Earlier criticism was expressed also by the education and
science ministry, stating that “the Constitution of Armenia forbids
political activities and advocacy at educational institutions”.

The YSU professor said they are against “the university being involved
in political processes”, at the same time ruled out any pressure upon
the students on strike by the university management.

It is noteworthy that reelected president Serzh Sargsyan is the
chairman of the YSU board.

Meanwhile, Hovannisian has long been urging Sargsyan to not involve
institutes of higher education in political parties – or rather one
party, since heads of student councils in Armenia are mostly members
of the ruling Republican party, who are mocked by the opposition as
“neo-republicans”.

Melkonyan made an appeal to the students to express political positions
at “the respective places” and “refrain from politicizing higher
educational institutions”. He says the Republicans “don’t allow
political processes” at universities.

“I am the president of the Young University Students’ Union, I have
more than 1,200 members, but we do not let any political process enter
the higher educational institutions; although, frankly speaking,
to say that it is completely ruled out would be demagogy. It is
impossible to absolutely exclude such possibilities, but at least to
a greater degree we have to stay out of political processes,” he says.

After the protest the students marched from YSU to other universities,
urging other students to join them. The gates of Yerevan State
Economics University (YSUE) and Yerevan State Medical universities
had been shut down to not let them in. Despite that, a group of male
students at YSUE jumped out of the ground-floor auditorium window
to join the strike. They marched to their final destination – the
Central Election Commission, where the second count of ballots was
being summed up at that moment.

WHO, ACCORDING TO HOVIK ABRAHAMYAN, ROCKS THE BOAT

Story from Lragir.am News:

16:02 25/02/2013

Today, Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan got angry when the street events were
mentioned in the parliament. First, get to know what is happening
there, who directs everything, he said.

Apparently, the ruling party is trying to convince everyone that
the street events are a conspiracy which is to be stopped. Hovik
Abrahamyan didn’t say who directs the masses and what the aim is,
but he hinted the aim is evil.

Hovik Abrahamyan is a member of the National Security Council of
Armenia and if he knows certain forces are preparing street conspiracy
in Armenia, he had better voice about it, otherwise he may be accused
of concealing crimes. If he does not, if the provocateurs are not
revealed and punished, then Hovik Abrahamyan knows the issue is not
the conspiracy.

Today, Raffi Hovannisian was called in the parliament to stop “making
fuss” and accept his failure. But the appeal is not addressed to
the right person: even if Raffi Hovannisian accepts his defeat,
the protests won’t end because they are not connected with Raffi
as individual, but with the activities of the same Hovik Abrahamyan
and others.

Hovik Abrahamyan needs to start with an appeal to his own party and
himself calling not to shift the arrows to conspiratorial issues,
but to accept their guilt in what is happening.

It is very easy to announce that that “others” direct the street
protests, to accuse the participants in shortsightedness and even
high treason to make it easier to state after March 1 that neither the
authorities nor the opposition fired at people, but some other forces.

The important is not to accept the guilt.

ARMENIA IN TRANSITION – FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY OR FACADE?

16:24, February 25, 2013

A few thoughts on the presidential election in Armenia on February 18,
2013; A report to the Steering Committee of the Civil Society Forum.

The recent presidential election in Armenia exhibited many features
common to a post-communist state in transition to a democratic form
of government. The election begs the question if the transition to a
functioning democracy will be successful in Armenia or if democratic
institutions will become a pure facade. If the latter happens then
society will face the choice of either rebelling to replace its
rulers or acquiescing in rule by governments which lacks democratic
legitimacy.

The election saw a mixture of social activity which reflects the
democratic experience of the past two decades and pressure from
external actors who are promoting democratic values such as the
European Union or the United States. But it also showed the continuing
influence of behavior patterns formed in Soviet times which are still
present both in government and society at large and which threaten
the country’s democratic evolution.

A narrow field

The election campaign saw a field of eight candidates including
the present incumbent but lacked the participation of important
political parties such as Prosperous Armenia (PA), formerly allied
with the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), and the Armenian
National Congress (ANC), a coalition of opposition parties, both
of which failed to field a candidate. It remains unclear why PA,
a party associated with rich business people, chose not to run, but
objectively the decision strengthened the incumbent’s position
in the election. The ANC and the Armenian Revolutionary Party (ARF),
another opposition party, decided not to run, arguing that the election
would not be fair and that there was no point in participating. This in
effect left the field to Serz Sargsyan (RPA), the incumbent, and his
main challenger Raffi Hovannisian, the leader of the Heritage Party
(HP). Pre-election opinion polls showed these two politicians to be
the two main contestants.

Insipid Campaign

Both lead candidates held campaign meetings. These differed in style
with Serz Sargsyan choosing a more formal style of addressing the
electorate at meetings, while the Californian born Raffi Hovannisian
favored direct contacts with the voters, adding ‘the walk about
’ methods adopted by western politicians. There were almost no
campaign posters and few campaign leaflets in evidence and all the
candidates relied on media coverage to reach voters. Media monitoring
by the Yerevan Press Club, a CSF member, showed the coverage to be
fair and balanced. There were no debates between the main candidates.

Candidates fight the local government machine – the other contest

By all accounts, the opposition candidates found themselves fighting
not only against each other but against the country’s local
government machine which was mobilized to support the incumbent
president. This was a throwback to Soviet times when there was little
distinction between the Communist party and the State administration.

Then, the authorities worked at election times to persuade the
population to vote as an outward sign of loyalty. In this election
in Armenia the aim of the authorities working with the Republican
Party was to deliver votes to the incumbent through persuasion,
bribery and subtle forms of intimidation. Nine out of ten governors
in the provinces went on leave to campaign for the current president
in a public sign that the full force of their influence on the state
apparatus and state controlled institutions, like the education system,
would be brought to play to garner votes. Indeed the governors, as
well as city mayors and village heads were well aware that they would
be judged by the central administration on their ability to deliver
votes to the incumbent. This competition of the governors and other
senior officials between themselves, aware that their career prospects
depended on the results they are able to generate, was the other
electoral contest which took place alongside the presidential election.

Bribery – a well organized if discreet procedure

There were reports from local election monitors of regular planning
meetings held by officials at the local level. By all accounts these
would be headed by the provincial governor and attended by local
parliamentary deputies from the RPA as well as the senior police
representatives. The meetings assigned tasks and assessed progress
in building support for the president. The mechanism was simple.

Individuals with good local knowledge would be tasked with identifying
voters who would then be encouraged with bribes to support the
incumbent candidate. Meanwhile, heads of public entities such as
teachers would be asked to provide resources such as halls for
meetings as well as tell their employees to vote for the official
candidate (a great majority of school directors are members of the
RPA). People targeted as potential recipients of bribes, which ranged
in value between 10 and 20 euro per vote, were more often than not
from among the not so well off. Contact would be direct, bringing new
meaning to the phrase ‘door to door’ canvassing, which
in developed democracies describes candidates meeting with voters
on their doorsteps in an attempt to win support. A representative of
the RPA told visiting experts that their campaign consisted of making
statements, having their candidate hold election meetings with voters,
and going ‘door to door’ in what appears to have been a
cynical parody of the western model.

But funding was sometimes scarce

In Vanadzor, a major Armenian town in the northern province of Lori,
it was reported that bribes were offered to people living on pensions
but employees of state institutions were told to vote for the president
without a promise of financial gratification. This would indicate
that the official campaign in this province was short of funds. In
Gyumri, Armenia’s second largest city, funds for the bribes
had to be raised locally in contrast to the parliamentary campaign
in the summer of 2012 when funds for this purpose had been provided
from outside the province.

Why no evidence?

The question remains why, with almost ubiquitous accounts of bribery
of voters, is there no available hard evidence of this practice.

Indeed, in this election the state prosecutor’s office appealed
(in response to a suggestion from ODiHR after last year’s
parliamentary campaign) for people who had been offered bribes
to come forward. There was little response. The reason is
that people are afraid of reporting such incidents as they are
aware that these will not be investigated by the police while the
‘whistleblowers’ could suffer at the hands of officialdom
if they complain. Also, potential recipients of bribes are targeted
precisely because they are vulnerable to official pressure and thus
prefer to remain silent. In addition, given high poverty levels and
a fall in confidence in politicians, the recipient of such a bribe
recognizes that this is a concrete sign that politics does deliver
rewards, however modest. Voting in Soviet societies was nothing
other than a gesture of loyalty to the government. Now in Armenia,
the introduction of the offer of financial gratification in what
is becoming a ‘voters support scheme’ is an innovation
brought by the introduction of some market mechanisms into the country.

Yet results were a surprise

The announcement of preliminary election results by the Central
Electoral Commission showed a turnout of 60.04% with Serz Sargsyan
declared the winner with a 58.64% share of the vote and Raffi
Hovannisian in second place with 36.75%. The result was questioned
by Raffi Hovannisian. In rallies immediately following the election
he referred to the incumbent as the ‘acting president’
who had ‘lost the election’ because ‘the people had
lost their fear’. Whatever the truth of the allegations that
the ballot was fixed, the ‘official’ result of the main
challenger surprised many and pointed to a surge of support in what
was seen as a protest vote against the incumbent. This suggests that
popular support for the president is lower than was expected and the
willingness of the population to express their opposition is greater.

It weakens Serz Sargsyan’s position as he faces new challenges in
the post election period, especially in relations with the European
Union.

Free Trade Area Agreement?

Armenia is currently negotiating a Deep and Comprehensive Free
Trade Area Agreement (DCFTA) with the EU, and with four negotiating
sessions still planned it is hoped that the talks will be completed
by the Vilnius Eastern Partnership summit at the end of November
2013. The completion of these talks this year would be an undoubted
achievement for the EU and would show that the Eastern Partnership
programme is working.

The European Council meeting last month also mentioned Georgia
and Moldova as countries with whom such negotiations could also be
completed by November. Serzh Sargsyan did not mention relations with
the EU in his campaign speeches, but before the elections he had
said several times both in public and in private contacts with top
EU officials that he will start on the reforms and push ahead with
the DCFTA talks after the elections.

However, for a DCFTA to be signed, as the case of Ukraine shows, the
human rights situation in a given country has to be in line with EU
democratic standards. Hence it is worth noting the low key reaction
by Catherine Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign
Affairs and Security Policy and Stefan Fule, the Commissioner for
Enlargement, to the Armenian election results.

The EU officials welcomed progress in holding the election in line
with international standards but criticized cases of partiality
by civil servants, misuse of administrative resources, unclear
interpretation of financial provisions and cases of pressure on
voters. This statement leaves the door open to progress on the DCFTA
but does not give carte blanche to the government and puts a question
mark over the government’s democratic credentials.

More serious is the fact that the election, with its surge of support
for an opposition candidate, shows the underlying weakness of the
president’s political position. This is not a good basis from
which to start implementing the DCFTA which requires major changes
in the way the economy is regulated and will provoke resistance from
powerful interest groups in Armenian society.

Observers observed and criticized

The election was observed by many local as well as international
observers. Pride of place goes to the Office of Democratic Institutions
of Human Rights (ODiHR) of the OSCE, which has significant experience
in election monitoring and whose judgments on the conduct of elections
are widely respected.

ODiHR noted that fundamental freedoms of expression and assembly were
respected during the campaign and that media coverage was balanced.

However, it also mentioned cases of pressure on voters, the lack
of impartiality on the part of the public administration, and
the participation of civil servants in the campaign. The European
Parliament (EP) observers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe (PACE) concurred in these findings. The parliamentary
assembly of the OSCE, which also observed the election, found that
Armenia had ‘made a step forward’ in conducting this
election compared to previous contests but was also critical.

But these critical remarks were not enough to deflect local criticism
that international observers are much too well disposed to the host
governments. What makes the situation worse is that the reports were
used in Armenia by the official media, which quoted them selectively
to legitimize the result of the elections.

Also there is a growing feeling in the Eastern Partnership countries
that observers from the parliamentary assemblies are biased because
they are political allies of the parties which are taking part in the
elections. Thus, the European People’s Party (EPP) is allied to
Serzh Sargsyan’s RPA. Indeed, soon after the preliminary results
were published Wilfried Martens, the head of the EPP, wrote to the
president warmly congratulating him on his victory. Mr Martens, who is
a former Belgian prime minister, also congratulated Raffi Hovanisian
whose Heritage Party is linked to the EPP as well as the RPA.

The lack of trust in international observers and western politicians
came to the fore when a small demonstration disrupted the post
election press conference of ODiHR and its partners. Lena Nazaryan,
a young civil activist, read out a statement beginning with the words:
“Dear political tourists, we have had enough of your efforts to
legitimize these fraudulent elections”. Her words were greeted
enthusiastically by many of the local people in the room. This could
well be a sign of the times.

Krzysztof Bobiñski

The author was in Armenia from February 16 to February 21 2013 to
report on the election on behalf of the election sub group of Working
Group 1 of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum.

Yerevan, February 21, 2013

A NEW DOCUMENTARY ON KHOJALY ISSUE AND NAGORNO KARABAKH LIBERATION WAR: MORE THAN 210.000 VIEWERS AND COUNTING

16:09 25/02/2013 ” SOCIETY

“Between hunger and fire. Power at the expense of lives” — This
is a new, two-series English-language documentary that tells about
the blockade of Stepanakert – capital of Nagorno Karabakh Republic
– in between November 1991 and February 1992. The film uncovers
a story of bombardments, country-wide destructions and atrocity
crimes against local Armenian population, as well as maneuvers of
Karabakh Self-Defense forces to calm down the heavy-artillery fire
from around the surrounding hills of the capital, foremost stationed
in Khojaly town.

The 90-minute, two-part documentary, released on YouTube
(), gathered around 210.000
viewers in around a week, and counting.

The documentary was originally released in Russian in February
2012 (), and attracted
considerable attention and interest in Armenia and beyond. The “Moscow”
cinema of Yerevan, various local universities hosted public screenings,
discussions and lectures on the film. The documentary, part of larger
endeavours, has been initiated by the Information and Public Relations
Centre of the Administration of the President of Armenia.

A heavyweight against the anti-Armenian propaganda and policy of
racism, sponsored by Azerbaijani government and affiliated funds,
the documentary is available in English either – for the wider
international community to have a wider perspective on the Khojaly
events and the Karabakh liberation war at all.

It is noteworthy that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
has ruled in Fatulayev v. Azerbaijan case (2010), that freedom of
speech, pluralism and tolerance are essential values for an eventual
democratic governance in Azerbaijan, which it aspires to have —
to the contrary of human rights watchdog annual reports.

“Moreover, the Court notes that it is an integral part of freedom
of expression to seek historical truth… For example, there are
conflicting views as to whether a safe escape corridor was provided
to the civilians fleeing their town…” (para 87).

First-time ever published archival documents, testimonies, photographs,
maps and interviews recollect the developments of those days of war in
February 1992, offering new evidences and challenging facts against
the anti-Armenian and racist propaganda of hatred and xenophobia,
championed by Azerbaijan and its government affiliated funds, which
had been presenting ‘Khojaly events’ in a carefully ‘doctored’ and
‘tailored’ way so far.

The film is considered for an audience of 18 and over only, as it
contains detailed violence content and uncovered photographs that
may cause mental unrest.

Source: Panorama.am

Is Turkey Arming Jihadists?

Commentary Magazine
02.01.2013

Michael Rubin | @mrubin1971

Last week, I noted that Turkey may soon find itself on the Financial
Action Task Force’s black list alongside Iran and North Korea because
of its failure to take action against terrorist financing. Adam Marx,
an avid reader of COMMENTARY and an informal student of Turkey, was
kind enough to point out that a new law on Turkey’s books may not be
enough, given Turkey’s recent trend not only to finance terrorists in
Libya, Syria, and elsewhere, but also to arm radical Islamists. If
everyone-Chuck Hagel and Obama’s CIA pick John Brennan-agrees that
Hamas and Mohamed Morsi represent the worst, most bigoted aspects of
the Muslim Brotherhood, then there should no longer be any illusion
regarding Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ=9Fan, whose political roots are in the
same movement. Eric Trager’s essay asking why so many Western analysts
got the Muslim Brotherhood wrong and addressing the myths which so
many still grasp is a must read. But while there is a reckoning with
regard to Egypt, ErdoÄ=9Fan and his Western supporters have gotten
away with murder.

Greece, for example, last month intercepted a Turkish ship that
apparently was part of an effort to arm either Libyan jihadists or,
even worse, transit weaponry to al-Qaeda affiliates in northern
Mali. Likewise, Yemeni authorities twice last month reportedly seized
Turkish arms bound for al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen. Syrian Kurds
regularly complain that Turkey is shipping weaponry to the al-Qaeda
elements in Syria like the Nusra Front, because ErdoÄ=9Fan would
rather have a radical Islamist entity on Turkey’s border than a
secular Kurdish canton.

If there’s one lesson which can be drawn from the past two decades, it
is that the strategy of various Middle Eastern states to support
Jihadism abroad while crushing terrorists at home backfires. Saudi
princes believed that they could fund al-Qaeda abroad, only to have
the group start attacking Saudis and foreign workers inside the
Kingdom. Bashar al-Assad also believed that he could use al-Qaeda to
undermine Iraq and perhaps Jordan, only to find himself fighting a
death struggle with the same al-Qaeda alumni inside Syria. If
ErdoÄ=9Fan continues down the path of promoting the Muslim Brotherhood
and even more radical groups abroad, he may very well set the stage
for a terrorist backlash in Turkey in coming years. The terrorists of
course will have primary blame for their actions but, when that
instability occurs, the Turks-and those who have supported
ErdoÄ=9Fan’s religious agenda-will have no one to blame but themselves
for such a short-sighted strategy.

UPDATE: Since I wrote this originally, it seems that a suicide bomber
has attacked a side entrance to the U.S. Embassy in Ankara,
Turkey. Our thoughts are with the victims. Alas, this will not be the
last suicide bombing Turkey experiences.

UPDATE 2: The U.S. tipped off Turkey about the presence of bin Laden’s
fugitive son-in-law not only in Turkey, but in a swank section of the
capital. Turkey has decided to extradite the fugitive to Iran, rather
than hand him over to U.S. authorities.

Is Turkey’s Arms Industry Changing Equations?

Commentary Magazine
02.24.2013

Michael Rubin | @mrubin1971

Word out of Turkey is that Roketsan-Turkey’s domestic missile
manufacture-has just concluded a nearly $200 million deal with the
United Arab Emirates. Turkey has made no secret of its desire to build
up its arms industry. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ=9Fan
has, for example, beseeched the Obama administration to provide Turkey
with drones at the same time that a Turkish armament company was
trying to develop Turkish drones for export.

Turkey has taken an increasingly activist approach to the Middle
East. It has supported the radical al-Nusra Front, designated a terror
group by the Obama administration, because it prefers violent
jihadists over secular Kurds. (Last week, Turkey’s Foreign Minister
Ahmet DavutoÄ=9Flu dismissed those who labeled the al-Qaeda affiliate
`Jihadists’ as little more than `American neo-cons and Israelis.’ The
fact that Turkey is willing to arm radical Islamists at odds with
U.S. strategic interests certainly marks a new era.

The Roketsan deal should also raise concern: While the United Arab
Emirates is a U.S. ally, it is also the trans-shipment point for
contraband heading to Iran. The Turkish government makes no secret of
its solidarity with Hamas; the time is not long off that Turkey might
supply Hamas with weaponry instead of just cash.

It’s not just U.S. national security at stake. As part of his
pre-confirmation conversion on pretty much all his previous positions,
defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel has affirmed the importance of
Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME). Traditionally, the Pentagon
calculates the QME relative to U.S. arms sales to Arab countries. Gone
are the days, however, when the United States (and perhaps France and
Great Britain) on one hand, and the Soviet Union (and perhaps East
Germany and Czechoslovakia) supplied their respective Arab client
states with arms. Today, it’s a free-for-all. Turkey supports
Islamists and terrorists. Sweden is ready to cash in on the
action. When it comes to Israel’s QME, the situation has gone
metaphorically from middle school arithmetic to multi-variable
calculus.

Alas, while Hagel says he will maintain Israel’s QME, neither he nor
Obama have suggested their commitment is going to take into account
other regional states that are increasingly willing to flood Arab
armies with hi-tech weaponry with little or no regard to what they
might mean for Israel’s ability to defend itself.

HAK TO JOIN RALLY OF HERITAGE PARTY ON MARCH 1

Tuesday,
February 26

The Armenian National Congress (HAK) Party has urged its supporters
to join the rally that Heritage Party will hold near Monument
to Myasnikian on March 1. Earlier HAK had notified the Yerevan
Municipality of its intention to organize a rally in Liberty Square
on March 1.

“HAK considers holding on the same day two rallies dedicated to the
same event to be inexpedient. We call upon our supporters to gather
at Monument to Myasnikian and pay tribute to the victims of the March
1 events,” a statement of HAK says.

TODAY, 17:41

Aysor.am

THE KHOJALU “GENOCIDE” FABRICATION BY BAKU

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-02-23 20:32
Top image:

Author:
The Keghart Editorial Board
Locality:
Other
Summary:
Azerbaijan is waging a propaganda war to spread misinformation.

People following the Armenian/Azerbaijan conflict cannot miss the
Azerbaijani campaign to convince the world that the three-and-a-half
hour midnight attack on Feb. 25, 1992 by Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (aka
Artsakh) Self-Defense Forces on Azeri -held Khojalu was “genocide.”

The charge is so ridiculous that a well-informed person would be
tempted to dismiss it out of hand. But these days of true lies,
blatant invasions depicted as peace-making humanitarian missions,
and the tiresome deception that “in 1915 Armenians were transported
to Syria for their protection,” we are forced to assert the truth
again and again. It’s a Sisyphean task, but there’s no alternative.

This is what happened in Khojalu. For most of 1991 and early 1992 the
Azeri OMON (Special Purpose Militia Detachment) had systematically
shelled Armenian civilian targets, using rockets. The Azeris had also
blockaded the nearby airport. As a result of Azeri attacks, Armenians
had suffered civilian casualties, hundreds had been kidnapped and
thousands of cattle had been driven away. The blockade had also
resulted in lack of food, fuel and medical supplies, especially in
Stepanakert, the capital of Artsakh. Armenian forces had to neutralize
Azeri fire in Khojalu and terminate the blockade. It was also obvious
to the Armenians that the Azeris were planning to attack the Armenian
centre of Askeran before moving on to the capital.

Using loudspeakers for ten days, the Armenian forces announced to
Khojalu inhabitants (mostly Meskhetian Turks who had been settled in
the village during Soviet times) and forces that an Armenian attack was
imminent. The announcements also informed Azeris that Armenians had
dedicated a corridor for the safe passage of civilians to Azeri-held
areas. But the Azeri authorities did nothing to facilitate the
evacuation of their people.

On Feb. 25, at 11:30 p.m. the Armenian self-defense forces attacked
Khojalu. A number of Azeri civilians tried to flee through the
corridor. However, Azeri forces fired at the column, killing an unknown
number. Although the Armenians were successful in neutralizing the
Azeri fire- power, Khojalu remained in Azeri hands for many months.

Soon after the attack, Azeri authorities claimed that Armenians had
committed not only genocide by firing at the fleeing Azeris but had
also mutilated the bodies of the dead. Although there was no shred of
evidence for their allegation, Azeri authorities repeated the charge.

In recent months they’ve decided to turn the Khojalu operation into
the focus of a full-court anti-Armenian campaign. As a result, Baku
has achieved a number of “propaganda and political victories:”

— In early 2012, US Congressmen Bill Shuster and Dan Boren urged
fellow politicians to honor the memory of the Khojalu “genocide”
victims.

— A member of the Texas House of Representatives has proposed a
resolution to commemorate the Khojalu “massacre.”

— An Azeri woman has sent a highly-publicized open letter to the
presidents of Armenia and of France, claiming that Armenians had
killed 613 civilians and taken 1,275 prisoners.

— Azeri diplomats are seeking international recognition of Khojalu
“genocide.”

— Pakistan has recognized the Khojalu “genocide” and Mexico is being
approached to do the same.

— Azerbaijan may use its current seat at the UN to spotlight the
“genocide” by Armenians.

— Members of the Azeri Diaspora have been busy in Europe and in
North America appealing for the recognition of the Armenian operation
as genocide. Latvian Azeris are collecting signatures to protest the
Khojalu “genocide.” A petition will be sent to the French Senate, the
Latvian Parliament and the European Parliament to demand recognition
of the “genocide.”

— Five Turkish universities and a technical college are commemorating
the Khojalu “genocide.”

— In Feb. 2012, a Khojalu “genocide” public commemoration was held
at the central square of Bursa, Turkey.

— Azeri embassies are holding commemorations and are inviting
diplomats from various countries to join in the recognition of the
“genocide.”

— Photographs of Khojalu casualties will be exhibited in Europe and
a submission will be made to the International Court.

— Baku has launched an Internet war with daily updates on “genocide”
recognition successes.

The above is by no means a comprehensive list of the Azeri war of
words. There are so many facts that disprove Baku’s allegations that
one doesn’t know where to begin. Space restrictions limit us from
reciting the chapter and verse of evidence against Baku’s allegations.

Even cursory research reveals that the Azeris have nothing to stand on:

— Azeri photographer Chingiz Mustafaev photographed the Azeri
corpses immediately after the fight and two days later. His latter
photos show that the position of the casualties had been changed and
their injuries had strikingly become more brutal. During both his
assignments the territory was still controlled by the Azeris. Shortly
after, President Ayaz Mutalibov said to the photographer, “Chengiz,
do not tell anybody about what you have noticed. Or, you’ll be killed.”

Undeterred, Mustafaev began to investigate on his own. But after
his findings were made public by the DR-Press Information Agency in
Moscow that the Azeri forces had participated in crimes against Khojalu
inhabitants, the journalist was killed not far from Aghdam. His death
remains a mystery.

— After visiting Khojalu immediately after the fight, Czech journalist
Dana Mazalova reported that he hadn’t seen any trace of barbarity on
the corpses.

— Azeri human rights activist Arif Yunusof wrote in “Zercalo”
Azerbaijani newspaper (July 1992), “The town and its citizens were
deliberately sacrificed to the political goal.” He was referring to
the quarrel between President Mutalubov and his enemies. The latter,
who wanted to topple the president, ordered the killing of their own
citizens to portray Mutalibov as incompetent.

— Tamerlan Karaev, chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijan
Republic, said in “Mukhalifat” Azeri newspaper (April 28, 1992):
“The tragedy was committed by Azerbaijan authorities, specifically
by a top official.”

— Vagif Guseynov, former Azeri minister of national security,
said shortly before his arrest, that the January 1990 Baku doings
[the pogroms of Armenians] and the events of Khojalu are the doing
of the same people [Azeri authorities].

— A month after his resignation, Mutalibov told Mazalova in
“Nezavisimaya Gazeta” that according to the “Khojalu inhabitants who
escaped, all this was organized to dismiss me. Some forces acted to
discredit the president. I don’t think that the Armenians, strictly and
professionally treating similar situation, could let the Azerbaijanis
gain any documents” which would incriminate them. He also said that
he couldn’t believe Armenians would provide a safe corridor and then
shoot at the escaping civilians.

— Eynulla Fatullaev of “Monitoring” Azeri magazine wrote that Khojalu
refugees in Naftalan had told her that a few days before the attack,
Armenians, with loudspeakers, kept warning the population of the
scheduled operation, suggesting civilians to leave the settlement and
break out of the encirclement via the humanitarian corridor. These
refugees also told Fatullaev that they had taken advantage of the
corridor and the Armenian forces had not fired at them. A few days
after the report was published, the magazine’s editor [Elmar Guseyov]
was shot (March 2, 2000) by a stranger at the entrance to his house
in Baku.

— The former Khojalu mayor told “Megapolis-Express” of Moscow that
he had asked for helicopters to evacuate Khojalu residents, but no
assistance was provided.

— The number of Khojalu victims Azeri claim increases from year to
year. Immediately after the attack, Azeris reported their casualties
as 100. A week later that was inflated to 1,234 [the population of
village was 2,000 to 2,500]. In 1992 Azeri journalists Ilya Balakhanov
and Vugar Khaliov presented to the Memorial Human Rights Centre in
Moscow a video cassette they had shot from helicopter. It showed that
Khojalu civilian casualties did not exceed 60 people. Armenian forces
reported 11 Azeri civilian casualties. Armenians handed all civilians
to Azeri authorities.

–According to the Republic of Armenia (RoA), barbaric mutilations
of bodies took place near Aghdam (some seven miles from Khojalu),
on territory controlled by Azeri forces.

The above is just a sampling of evidence Armenian authorities in
Armenia and in Artsakh have at their disposal. They also have audio,
photographic and video evidence.

So despite the lame evidence of genocide, why does Baku invest so
much effort to prove that Armenians committed genocide?

— To distract the Azeri populace from the shortcomings of the corrupt
and incompetent Aliev regime.

— To prove the failings of their predecessor government.

— To succeed in the information war when they have failed on the
battlefield.

— To distract world attention from the Genocide of Armenians. As
junior partners in the “Turkbeijan” (Turkish-Azerbaijan) axis, Azeris
have to support their Big Brother.

— To pre-empt talk of Azeri pogroms of Armenians in Sumgait, Baku
and Maragha, the ethnic purges in Nakhichevan, Kirovabad, and the
indiscriminate killing of civilians in Stepanakert.

— To cover up their pre-Feb. 25 crimes around Khojalu: Azeri forces
had killed Armenian civilians in the surrounding region through the
use of highly-lethal weapons; they didn’t evacuate Khojalu civilians
despite numerous warnings from Armenians; they slew their civilians
who had opted for the humanitarian corridor; to transform Armenians
into ogres, Azeri authorities mutilated their own people. They
doctored photos of casualties, using Photoshop and other technical
means. Photos of the casualties in the Kosovo War and the Kurdish
conflict have been depicted as Azeri casualties. There’s extensive
forensic proof of this in Armenian hands.

— The current Baku leadership had a hand in the Khojalu killings.

They did so to defeat to show to Azeri that Mutalibov is incompetent.

Blaming Armenians is an effective way to silence the suspicions of
Azeri citizens.