Author: Badalian Vardan

June 21, 2008
Stockholm, Sweden

Armenica
Box 1716
SE-751 47 Uppsala
Sweden
Contact: Vahagn Avedian
+46 707 73 33 83
[email protected]

One Week after Sweden Rejected Recognition of the 1915 Genocide

A week has passed by since the world heard the argumentation of the
Swedish Parliament and its decision to reject recognition of the 1915
genocide. A short review of its meaning and effects is warranted.

The astonishment and the regret among scholars involved was great.
Already at the signing of the petition addressed to the Swedish
Parliament, numerous scholars expressed their regret about the need of
such a letter in 2008 and that in Sweden.

This is not only about Turkey and the involved minorities, but it is
also about the reputation of Sweden and its political leaders. That a
party which is regarded as the founder of Forum for Living History and
another which already has recognized the 1915 genocide at its general
congress voted against a recognition did not make the issue any better. As
one of the scholars wrote, it was highly strange that the Social
Democrats, who were the promoters of Forum for Living History
(governmental agency which educates the Swedish society and teachers about
the 1915 genocide), themselves refuse to recognize the genocide. At their
Party Congress in August 2005, Folkpartiet (The Liberals) recognized the
1915 genocide and recommended that `The EU should exert strong pressure on
Turkey to recognize the genocide committed against Armenians, Assyrians,
Syriacs, Chaldeans, and Pontic Greeks during WWI.’ One should practice
what one preaches…

In the newspaper Dagen (June 13, 2008), MP Alf Svensson (Christian
Democrat) pointed out that the parliament, after all, had recognized the
genocide indirectly when it was stated that `The Committee understands
that what engulfed the Armenians, Assyrian/Syriacs and Chaldeans during
the reign of the Ottoman Empire would, according to the 1948 Convention,
probably be regarded as genocide, if it had been in power at the time.’ It
might look that way, but let see what a refusal to recognize the 1915
genocide for its true nature has meant in Turkey. Precisely as the
scholars stated in the petition (signed by over 60 world leading genocide
experts), the refusal to recognize a genocide is nothing but supporting
and abetting its denial.

The Swedish Parliament’s decision was quickly intercepted by Turkish
media and the news was published in several newspapers. Hürryet (June 14,
2008) cited Egeman Bagis, member of the AKP party (i.e. the same
`democratic’ powers which the Swedish Foreign Committee wishes to
promote) and advisor to the prime minister, expressing his gratitude for
the Swedish Parliament’s rejection of `the Armenian allegations’ in
regard to `the so-called genocide’. The text continues: `Some 300,000
Armenians and at least an equal number of Turks were killed in civil
strife when Armenians, backed by Russia, rose up against the Ottomans in
1915.’ Thus, now supported by the Swedish Parliament, it is the Armenians
who have killed more Turks and Kurds and not the way around, while the
`indirectly recognized’ genocide is merely `Armenian allegations.’
Hürriyet, one of the three largest newspapers in Turkey and maybe the
most influential one, is actually regarded as of `liberal’ nature. It is
often accused for attempts for destabilizing the country and has ‘Türkiye
Türklerindir’ (Turkey belongs to Turks) beside Atatürk’s image in its
logotype. The newspapers `Zaman’, `Turkish Weekly’ and others had similar
reporting. If now these are the liberal powers in Turkey, one might
imagine what the `extremist’ organizations have done with the Swedish
genocide denial.

Thus, the parliament, exactly as stated in the petition, and quite
contrary to what Foreign Minister Carl Bildt and the Foreign Department
have tried to pretend to be the case, has now directly contributed to
nourishing history revisionism and those currents which make the life of
the minorities unbearable in Turkey.

It should be mentioned that on June 17, 2008, the publicist Ragip Zarakolu
was sentenced to five months prison for having `insulted the Turkish
Nation’ in accordance to the infamous paragraph 301. His crime: having
published a translation of the British author George Jerjian’s book `The
Truth will set us Free: Armenians and Turks Reconciled’, about the
Armenian Massacres of 1915. Thereby one can verify that the alteration in
the law which took place in April, 2008, opposite to the assertion of the
Swedish Foreign Committee mentioning the `reform package’, `freedom
package’ or the `democracy package’, is nothing but a cosmetic change and
a masquerade. Furthermore, it was displayed that the recommendation of the
Foreign Committee for a rejection of recognition `…in the time being, it
would be venturesome to disturb an initiate and delicate national process’
is quite baseless. The Swedish refusal to more forcefully and more clearly
support the democracy in Turkey can only abet similar actions and
decisions in a Turkey which obviously is incapable of reforming itself
from within. This can, in no ways, promote the demanded development in
Turkey, or benefit Sweden’s reputation, or the interests of EU.

The voting protocol was a very interesting reading. Those 37 MPs ho voted
for recognition of the 1915 genocide deserve all praise and honor,
especially those who defied their party lines and the presented
disinformation and instead followed their own principles and the facts at
hand. After questioning some MPs who had voted `yes’ for rejecting a
recognition, it became clear that the knowledge in the issue is almost
non-existing. The MPs had, more or less, blindly followed the
`recommendation’ of the Foreign Department. Thus, some of the blame for
the wrongful decision and the disinformation among the MPs must be placed
upon our organizations that should, in good time, have had supplied the
MPs with correct data, resolutions, reports etc. Therefore, in connection
with the elections to the EU Parliament in 2009 and the Swedish elections
in 2010, we will make sure that the MPs, unlike those parliamentary
members who during the debate could not answer one single question in
defense of the rejection decision, at least do not lack knowledge in the
issue and will be able to form their own opinion rather than voting in
accordance to a directive which demonstrably was based on pitfalls and
errors.

Vahagn Avedian
Chairman of the Board, Union of Armenian Associations in Sweden
Chief Editor of Armenica.org

BANK KING IS LEADER OF ARMENIAN CHESS CLUB CHAMPIONSHIP

Noyan Tapan

Ju ne 20, 2008

YEREVAN, JUNE 20, NOYAN TAPAN. The games of the third stage of the
Chess Club Championship of men continuing in Yerevan took place on
June 19. Mika won FIMA with the score 3.5:2.5, the Bank King defeated
Gyumri with the score 4.5:1.5 and Yerevan was defeated by Hrazdan
with the score 4:2.

Two stages before the end of the tournament the Bank King is in the
lead of the table with 6 points, FIMA, Mika and Hrazdan have 4 points
each. Gyumri and Yerevan have not received any points so far.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF REFUGEES

Panorama.am
19:59 20/06/2008

"This is a day when people express their sympathy and not
congratulations," said Gagik Eganyan, the head of Migration agency,
in a meeting with the journalists today.

Note that June 20 is celebrated as international day of refugees in
the world. The mission of the day is to support all the refugees to
have prosperous life.

G. Eganyan presented the projects connected with the problem. He
said that refugees living in Yerevan will get certificates to buy
apartments and approximately 1100 families are registered.

According to G. Eganyan 87.000 refugees received Armenian citizenship.

LEADER OF KARABAKH WAR VETERANS STRUGGLES WITH HOBSON’S CHOICE
Gayane Abrahamyan

EurasiaNet
June 16 2008
NY

His name was a recurring chant at opposition rallies following
Armenia’s disputed February 19 presidential vote. Opposition leaders
believed that support from former deputy defense minister and Manvel
Grigorian, head of the country’s largest group of Nagorno-Karabakh
war veterans, would be critical in catapulting them to victory. But
the much-touted support never came. And now, nearly four months after
Armenia’s presidential election, the question lingers on: who exactly
do Grigorian and his coalition of Karabakh war veterans support?

With ties still strained to the breaking point between the Armenian
government and opposition, the query is far from academic.

Grigorian’s 30,000-strong Yerkrapah [Custodian of the Land] Volunteers
Union is a veterans’ assistance group often termed "a state within
a state." With a national network of members, many in key government
posts, Yerkrapah has exercised considerable political influence since
its 1993 formation. "[T]heir statement before every election about
whom they support has been important," commented Vardan Abrahamian,
a professor of political science at Yerevan State University.

Recognizing that importance, opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosian
repeatedly told supporters in late February that the general and
fellow Deputy Defense Minister General Gagik Melkonian had signed
on to support his call for fresh elections. But neither Grigorian
nor Melkonian ever publicly expressed his own view. In early May,
Grigorian, who was fired from his post as deputy defense minister on
April 2, declared that his organization "has never been and will not
be engaged in politics and no one can speculate with its name."

At Yerevan’s Yerablur cemetery of soldiers who fought in the
1988-1994 Karabakh war with Azerbaijan, though, the question of
Yerkrapah’s allegiances has a clear-cut answer. For the past three
weeks, a group of over 100 individuals have been on a hunger strike
both in the capital and in the northern town of Gyumri to protest the
imprisonment of war veterans and the March 1 crackdown on opposition
protestors. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

To these Yerkrapah members, Grigorian’s apparently passive stance
on Armenia’s political divide is unacceptable. "[I]f he had stood by
the people’s side, the authorities would not have had the courage to
use troops against the people," hunger striker Hayk Asatrian said in
reference to the March 1 crackdown on Ter-Petrosian supporters.

Grigorian could not be reached for comment.

One associate, however, indicates that Ter-Petrosian has not been
the only political figure courting the 52-year-old general. The
associate, who asked not to be named, told EurasiaNet that for the
past few weeks representatives of both President Serzh Sarkisian and
ex-President Robert Kocharian have been visiting Grigorian at his
home in Etchmiadzin, not far from Yerevan.

"Each tries to draw him to his own side," the associate said,
expressing the widely held view that Kocharian is allegedly still
attempting to exercise political influence.

The associate could not state the status of Grigorian’s current
relations with Ter-Petrosian. The general himself has never publicly
addressed the ex-president’s claims about his support; the Defense
Ministry has vigorously denied them.

Many Ter-Petrosian supporters, however, believe that the large number
of arrests among Yerkrapah members following March 1 was designed to
weaken the union and to neutralize any potential political threat to
the government it may pose.

According to the state prosecutor’s office, 25 of the 52 individuals
still in jail are Yerkrapah members. Their number includes Yerkrapah
deputy director and parliamentarian Myasnik Malkhasian; five Yerkrapah
members have already been sentenced to prison, while an additional
four are on a wanted list. "Authorities understand very well that
[the Union] is powerful and realized after the February election that
they are losing control [over the group] because most of its members
supported the former president," commented ex-deputy defense minister
Vahan Shirkhanian, who served under President Kocharian from 1999
to 2000.

The governing Republican Party of Armenia, however, dismisses that
opinion as groundless. Party spokesperson Eduard Sharmazanov says
that all members of Yerkrapah "deserve the highest esteem" as heroes.

"[T]hey are in prison not because they are Yerkrapah members, but
because they are charged with crimes," Sharmazanov asserted.

Government officials have so far kept mum about the general. On March
13, then President-Elect Serzh Sarkisian, who fought with Grigorian
in Karabakh, told television viewers in reference to Grigorian that
he found it "very sad and painful that he, for reasons unknown to me,
tried to go into politics and made an attempt to disobey the Supreme
Commander-in-Chief."

Grigorian had served as deputy defense minister since 1999, following
outspoken Yerkrapah criticism of the government’s handling of the
1999 parliamentary shootings that left eight people dead.

Within Grigorian’s circle, though, the government is seen to be still
holding a sizeable stick over the general. On April 6, Grigorian and
an aide were charged with having allegedly threatened to murder an
employee of airline Armavia and his family. A spokesperson for the
general prosecutor’s office declined to elaborate on the charge. "The
case will remain open unless Manvel expresses readiness to cooperate
with them [members of the Sarkisian administration]," Grigorian’s
associate speculated.

Meanwhile, Grigorian is keeping a low profile. On May 8, a memorial
day for veterans, Grigorian visited the Yerablur cemetery alone
to commemorate the war dead rather than with his usual Yerkrapah
coterie. A traditional Victory Day concert also did not take place,
Yerkrapah veterans say.

Following the general’s April 2 dismissal from the Defense Ministry
and disappearance from public life, many opposition supporters claimed
that he had been placed under house arrest. But Yerkrapah spokesperson
Hakob Hakobian now denies the claim, saying that Grigorian is at
home in Etchmiadzin and is "very glad to have more time to spend on
organizing Yerkrapah’s activities."

For one senior Ter-Petrosian supporter, that news comes as no
surprise. Both the government and the opposition, noted Suren
Sureniants, a member of the opposition Republic Party’s political
council, "expected more from Manvel Grigorian than he could give."

HEGHINE BISHARIAN DOES NOT SEE DANGER OF DEPRIVING RA DELEGATION IN
PACE OF VOTE

Y EREVAN, JUNE 13, NOYAN TAPAN. Rather active work is done in the
direction of fulfilment of the requirements of Resolution N 1609 on
activity of democratic institutions in Armenia adopted at the PACE
spring session. Heghine Bisharian, the Head of the RA National Assembly
Orinats Yerkir (Country of Law) faction, expressed such an opinion at
the June 13 press briefing adding that therefore she does not see a
danger of depriving the Armenian delegation of vote at the PACE summer
session.

In the respect of fulfilment of the requirements the deputy attached a
special importance to a number of bills adopted during the regular last
four-day session of NA spring session that finished the day before, by
which, in particular, amendments and addenda were made to the law On
Holding Meetings, Gatherings, Marches, and Demonstrations and to the NA
Regulations. The discussion of the draft decision On Creating an Ad Hoc
Parliamentary Commission on Investigation of the March 1-2 Events in
the Town of Yerevan and Their Reasons was also considered important.
Its adoption is expected at the special session to be convened next
week. H. Bisharian said that Hovhannes Margarian and Artashes Avoyan
will be included in the commission from OYP.

In response to the question of Noyan Tapan correspondent the head of
the faction said that at the same session OYP will also nominate the
candidatures of the above mentioned deputies to the posts of chairmen
of two out of three newly created parliamentary standing committees.
These posts have been reserved for the party as a result of a political
agreement. According to the decision made by OYP, H. Margarian and A.
Avoyan will be nominated to the posts of Chairmen Standing Committees
of Territorial Management and Local Self-Government and Issues of
Agriculture and Environment.

‘DEMOCRATIC MOTHERLAND’ OPPOSITIONAL PARTY LEADER PETROS MAKEYAN SENTENCED TO 3 YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT

arminfo
2008-06-13 17:18:00

ArmInfo. "Democratic Motherland" oppositional party leader Petros
Makeyan has been sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment.

As spokeswoman of RA Court of Review Alina Yengoyan told ArmInfo,
today, the court of general jurisdiction of Armenia’s Shirak region
found Ashot Zakaryan, Petros Makeyan and Shota Saghatelyan guilty in
hindering fulfillment of the election right during the presidential
election in the country.

According to the message, the accused have been found guilty in
committing of a crime, envisaged by pp. 3 and 5, part 2, Article 149
of RA Criminal Code (‘hindering fulfillment of the election right,
the work of the election commissions or fulfillment of its authorities
by a person participating in the election’). By the court decision,
A. Zakaryan and Shota Saghatelyan have been sentenced to 2,5 years
of imprisonment, and P. Makeyan – to 3 years.

Moreover, taking into account the attenuating circumstances, the court
decided not to apply the punishment with respect to S. Saghatelyan,
in line with Article 70 of RA CC, and established a two-year probation
period and decided to discharge him from custody in the court hall,
the message reports.

BUSH IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES SENT TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
X-X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Listprocessor -Version: 8.1 — ListProcessor(tm) by CREN

PanARMENIAN.Net
12.06.2008

The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to send articles of
impeachment against President George W. Bush to a committee that is
not likely to hold hearings before the end of his term.

By 251-166, House members dispatched the measure to the Judiciary
Committee on Wednesday – a procedure often used to kill legislation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi long ago declared the prospects for
impeachment proceedings "off the table."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who ran for president earlier this year,
insists that his resolution deserves more consideration. He spent more
than four hours Monday night reading his 35 articles of impeachment
into the record, including charges that Bush manufactured a false
case for going to war against Iraq.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday that the Democratic-led
Congress was holding the Bush administration accountable and
questioned spending time on impeachment in the "waning months of this
administration’s tenure."

An election looms in which every House seat, a third of those in
the Senate and the presidency are up for grabs. House leaders are
staunchly against spending the remaining time in the abbreviated
legislative schedule on impeachment proceedings.

The House vote sent the impeachment articles to the House Judiciary
Committee, chaired by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who had once vowed
to hold impeachment hearings. He wouldn’t immediately comment on the
articles’ prospects for hearings.

Democratic aides widely suggested those gauging the bills prospects
look to a precedent: the impeachment articles against Vice President
Dick Cheney, which were sent to Conyers’ committee in November. There’s
no evidence they will be considered before the Bush administration
leaves office in January.

Those were Kucinich’s, too. Republicans, seeing a chance to
force Democrats into an embarrassing debate, voted to bring up the
resolution. Democrats countered by pushing through a motion to scuttle
the bill from the floor.

Kucinich’s articles also charge Bush with failing to provide troops
with vehicle armor, illegally detaining both foreign nationals and
Americans, condoning torture, mishandling the government’s response
to Hurricane Katrina and undermining efforts to address global warning.

"It is imperative that members of Congress have a thorough opportunity
to read the articles of impeachment and study the documentation,"
Kucinich said in a statement, the AP reports.

Armenica
Box 1716, 751 47 Uppsala, Sweden
Contact: Vahagn Avedian
+46 707 73 33 83
[email protected]

June 12, 2008
Stockholm, Sweden

Swedish Parliament Refuses to Recognize the 1915 Genocide

On June 12, 2008, the Swedish Parliament, with the votes 245 to 37 (1
abstain, 66 absent), rejected a call for recognition of the 1915 genocide
in the Ottoman Empire. On June 11, a long debate took place in the Swedish
Parliament in regard to the Foreign Committee report on Human Rights,
including five motions calling upon the Swedish Government and Parliament
to officially recognize the 1915 genocide. In its answer (2007/2008:UU9),
a majority consisting of the ruling alliance parties together with the
Social Democrats (opposition party) proposed rejecting the motions,
whereby the Green (Miljöpartiet) and the Left (Vänsterpartiet) parties
announced their reservations, forcing the Parliament to have a debate in
the main chamber before the proposal was voted on. The argumentation for
why a recognition should be rejected was based on four main assumptions:

– -…no particular consideration regarding the Armenian situation has ever
been in form of an UN Resolution, either in 1985 or any other occasion.-
– -The Committee understands that what engulfed the Armenians,
Assyrian/Syrians and Chaldeans during the reign of the Ottoman Empire
would, according to the 1948 Convention, probably be regarded as genocide,
if it had been in power at the time.-
– -There is still a disagreement among the experts regarding the different
course of events of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The same
applies to the underlying causes and how the assaults shall be
classified.-
– [in regard to the development in Turkey] -…in the time being, it would
be venturesome to disturb an initiate and delicate national process.-
[which could fuel the extremists in the country]

In an open letter to MPs, I pointed out some major flaws in the stated
arguments, mentioning that the Foreign Committee members are either poorly
informed on the existing data, reports, conventions and resolutions or
they simply disregard the broad information which strongly contradicts
their assertions. The UNCHR Whitaker Report from 1985, the resolutions
issued by the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), the
UN Genocide Convention, its background and meaning, along with the
petition signed by over 60 world leading Holocaust and Genocide scholars
(available in 13 languages at ) were some
of the attachments as evidence for the erroneous and misleading
information the report suggested. But, the debate on June 11 proofed that
the decision had nothing to do with the presented facts.

The more the debate went on, the more it was revealed that no MP could
explain, less defend, any of the above mentioned arguments, save for maybe
the last one. During the debate, Member of Parliament Hans Linde (Left),
talking about the arguments stated in the document repeatedly asked the
members of the alliance parties to explain the argumentation in the report
and answer three simple and straight forward questions, namely 1) Who are
these researchers disagreeing on the reality of the 1915 genocide? 2) If
the 1915 genocide can not be recognized due to the chronology of the 1948
UN Convention, how come then the Holocaust is recognized? 3) Why should
the fear of extremists inside Turkey dictate the freedom of speech in the
Swedish Parliament? None of the defendants could give an answer. This
actually might be the only light in the otherwise some what embarrassing
situation that the MPs were faced with when trying to evade the questions
in whole. Mats Sanders (Moderat/Conservatives) had, literally nothing to
add but to refer to the report text. Alf Svensson (Christian Democrats),
in regard to the -disagreement among researchers-, was asked to name only
one serious researcher who renounces the 1915 genocide. He defended the
proposition by stating that he -believes in the information they receive
from the Foreign Services… I believe that this is the truth, and if it is
proven otherwise, then I am truly sorry.- I am not quite sure if Mr.
Svensson really believes in what he stated in that sentence. But then
again, who, if not a Christian Democrat would safeguard issues such as
moral, human dignity, and stewardship.

Mats Pertoft (Green), one of the co-authors of the motions, pointed out
that the 1915 genocide was no different from the climate issue. For couple
of years ago, there was a disagreement among researchers about the global
warming, but now, even though there are some who still disagree, there is
a consensus on the issue among an overwhelming majority of the
researchers. The same applies to the 1915 genocide. Mentioning the
petition signed by genocide experts, Pertoft joined Linde in urging the
MPs to at least deny recognition on political basis and refrain from
abusing the name of science and renouncing facts. A day earlier, I,
together with Linde and Pertoft, partook in a debate broadcasted live by
the Assyrian Satellite TV Station Suroyo. The TV station had invited
several other MPs representing the -no- side, but in vain. No one was
willing to participate. Linde’s radio debate on the subject, scheduled for
the morning of June 11, was also canceled since the MP defending the
Foreign Committee proposition had backed out in last second. Maybe, just
maybe, the text of the petition, sent to all members of parliament, made a
difference by stating that -Today, the data and information about the
Genocide of Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks are so extensive that
no serious politician can honestly cite insufficient or inconclusive
research as an excuse to avoid recognition.- This was at least true in the
case of those who chose not participate in any of the debates, rather than
compromising their honesty by being forced to follow their party line and
defend their denial of a genocide.

Two politicians defied their parties. Yilmaz Kerimo (Social Democrat), an
ethnic Assyrian was one. The other, Lennart Sacrédeus (Christian
Democrat), going against his party line, took the podium defending a
recognition of the 1915 genocide and ended his statement by adding: -I
know that we will stay here again in one year debating the very same
question…Turkey will be hit by bad will for every debate in every
parliament where this question is deeply associated with Turkey. I think
that we acknowledge and can understand the background for why the issue is
locked in Turkey; but the truth will set you free and it applies to Turkey
and the legacy after Atatürk.- The truth will set you free, but Swedish
politicians today displayed that they are neither ready to acknowledge the
truth nor willing to set Turkey free from its dark burdensome past.

The debate lasted over three hours, during which the present audience
agreed upon one certainty: no one of those recommending the rejection of a
recognition could, based on the alleged arguments in the report, explain,
less defend their case. It was soon obvious that there simply were no
sustainable arguments to be given to explain why Sweden can not recognize
the 1915 genocide. The -no- was purely a political decision for
maintaining good relations with Turkey, nothing else. But could such a
decision actually benefit Turkey? Or Sweden? Or EU? In my opinion, similar
decisions and signals are nothing but doing Turkey, and not least oneself,
a disservice. What kind of message do we send to a Turkey in urgent need
of reformation and democratization when we tell them that it is actually
acceptable to cover up crimes and deny facts and the truth? What kind of a
democracy does Sweden and EU nourish in Turkey? Notwithstanding, I can not
imagine a single Armenian who would not welcome, by European measures, a
reformed and democratized Turkey as their neighbor. The same would apply
to Assyrians, Greeks, Kurds etc. But, the kind of signals which the
Swedish Parliament today sent surely cause more damage to the Turkish
process of becoming a more open society than the opposite.

Another paradox in Sweden became evident, namely the existence of the
Living History Forum, a government agency created in the wake of the
International and Intergovernmental Genocide Conference in Stockholm,
2004. On their web site the mission of the agency is described as
following: -The Living History Forum is a government agency which has been
commissioned with the task of promoting issues relating to tolerance,
democracy and human rights – with the Holocaust as its point of reference.
By spreading knowledge about the darkest sides of human history, we want
to influence the future.- The Living History Forum lists the 1915 genocide
as one of the genocides in the 20th century and educates the Swedish
society about what really happened in the Ottoman Empire during WWI. It
seems highly ironic that the Swedish Government and politicians do not
practice what they preach. -By spreading knowledge about the darkest sides
of human history, we want to influence the future.- Suddenly, Darfur makes
total sense. The world which Swedish politicians, or any other politicians
for that matter, shape by influencing the future with their denial of
genocide is the kind where we do speak of, not a historic, but an ongoing
genocide, that in Darfur; and we will most certainly experience yet many
more.

The phrase: -history must be left to historians- is often used by the
Turkish state and those politicians around the world who do wish to avoid
treading Turkish toes by recognizing the 1915 genocide. I did not realize
until today how true that phrase is. Actually, I totally agree with the
Turkish state on this one: history must be written by historians, not
politicians. Today, however, Swedish MPs wrote their own new version of
the history, a revised alternative suiting their political agenda,
denouncing a broad data and consensus put forward by the expert scholars
in the field. I hope that Swedish leaders, as well as all political
leaders, would in future leave the research to researchers and base their
decision making on presented facts put forward by scholars. Sacrédeus’
prophecy will be fulfilled as the 1915 genocide will most certainly be
discussed in the Swedish Parliament again and again. As an answer to the
last question I got in the TV debate, about how we will continue when the
highly expected rejection in the Parliament comes, I replied -We will go
on remembering the genocide of 1915, even after its recognition. We have
already started the preparation for the manifestation on April 24, 2009,
which, as the last two years, will take place in front of the Swedish
Parliament. But, I hope that this time, instead of calling upon the
Parliament to recognize the genocide, we will thank the MPs for having
recognized it.-

Vahagn Avedian
Chairman of the Union of Armenian Associations in Sweden
Chief Editor of Armenica.org

HIKMET HAJIZADE: "RUSSIA DOES NOT TRUST AZERBAIJAN, CONSIDERING IT TO BE A COUNTRY OF A DIFFERENT UNFRIENDLY CIVILIZATION"

Today.Az, Azerbaijan
June 11 2008

Day.Az interview with famous political scientist Hikmet Hajizade.

– What do you expect from official visit of Russian President Dmitri
Medvedev to Azerbaijan, scheduled for July 3-4?

– Perhaps, several important intergovernmental issues will be
discussed,but the most important, what Russia is concerned about
are energy problems. Russia tries to prevent Caspian energy sources
supply to the world market via Azerbaijan bypassing Russia. Moreover,
Russia tries to possess the Caspian gas to strengthen monopolistic
positions of Gazprom in ensuring gas for Europe. Perhaps, we will be
persuaded to reject support of Georgia.

– A number of experts state that Russia is still ruled by Vladimir
Putin, while Dmitri Medvedev fulfills purely representative
functions. Do you agree with this point?

– Yes, it is this way so far, but I would like to note that Putin
has once been not the sole ruler of Russia and was a representative
of a powerful grouping comprising senior officers of the FSS and
reconnaissance. Medvedev has not taken any steps, not envisioned by
the strategy of the said grouping. His speech during the economic
forum in Petersburg was in fact the repetition of the confrontation
Munich speech of Putin. But let’s not hurry. Medvedev has time for
demonstrating himself as an independent politician.

– Vladimir Putin’s presidency was marked with a thaw in the
Azerbaijani-Russian relations. Can we expect further closing of our
countries under Dmitri Medvedev?

– Well, anyway, the relations will not worsen significantly under
him, except for any extraordinary cases. Some toughening of policy
towards Azerbaijani migrants is possible, which can be prevented by
our diplomacy.

– How far can Russia go in its loyalty to Azerbaijan and can we
expect from Russia to impose pressure on Armenia strong enough for
this country to return the occupied lands to us?

– Under the current course, laid in the mid 1990s and finally formed
under Putin, no changes are expected in the Russia’s policy towards
conflicts in the Caucasus. Too much should change in Russia and in
the world for Moscow to reject support of separatism in the Caucasus.

– What can Azerbaijan give to Russia in exchange for such steps as
pressure on Armenia?

– Russia demands too much: to reject our independent external and
energy policy, give up developing relations with Turkey and NATO,
reject support to Georgia, join the Collective Security Treaty,
allow Russian frontier guards to guard our borders and return troops
to Azerbaijan.

Unfortunately, by doing it all we will not have a guarantee that we
will get Karabakh as Russia does not trust Azerbaijan considering it to
be a part of a different unfriendly civilization. Russia strategists
consider that Azerbaijan will always dream of being with Turkey,
strive for European integration and independence from Russia.

/Day.Az/

URL:

ON THE WAY TO NATO

A1+
[03:28 pm] 10 June, 2008

On June 11 the delegation headed by RA Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan
will leave for Brussels to participate in the sitting of the Defense
Ministers of the North-Atlantic Council to be convened in the format
countries participating in NATO’s action in Kosovo.

The sitting will take place at the NATO headquarters on June 12. In
the framework of the visit the Armenian Defense minister will meet
with his counterparts and the NATO leadership.