Athens: Armenia Praises Greece For Law Banning Denial Of Genocide

ARMENIA PRAISES GREECE FOR LAW BANNING DENIAL OF GENOCIDE

eKathimerini, Greece
Sept 10 2014

Armenia on Wednesday praised Greece for approving a law banning the
denial of genocide as Yerevan calls for the massacre of Armenians
during World War I in present-day Turkey to be internationally
recognised as genocide.

“Armenia welcomes the adoption of a bill on September 9 by the Greek
parliament, which criminalises the denial of genocides,” Armenian
Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said in a statement.

“The adoption of this bill… is an important step towards the
prevention of genocides and other heinous crimes against humanity,”
he added.

After a year of debates, the Greek parliament on Tuesday passed a new
law that punishes those denying or praising the Holocaust, genocide
and war crimes against humanity.

Armenia has long sought for 1915 massacres by the Ottoman Empire
in which it says up to 1.5 million people were killed to be
internationally recognised as genocide.

Turkey has fiercely rejected the term, arguing that 300,000 to
500,000 Armenians and at least as many Turks died in civil strife
when Armenians rose up against their Ottoman rulers and sided with
invading Russian troops.

[AFP]

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_10/09/2014_542795

Greece Bans Denials Of Armenian Genocide

GREECE BANS DENIALS OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

EurasiaNet.org
Sept 10 2014

September 10, 2014 – 9:59am, by Giorgi Lomsadze

Armenia on September 9 got a gift from Greece — a law making it a
crime to deny that the World-War-I slaughter of ethnic Armenians in
Ottoman Turkey amounts to genocide. Needless to say, thanks already
have been expressed.

The measure comes as part of a new anti-hate-crime law that applies
similar penalties for rebuttals of the Holocaust and other war-crimes.

The law also toughens punishments for racially and sexually motivated
hate-crimes.

Greece ranks as the third country after Switzerland and Slovakia
to criminalize claims that the slaughter, which Turkey downplays as
one of many atrocities of World War I, ranks as a genocide. In 2012,
France, home to a large Armenian Diaspora, adopted a similar bill,
which strained relations with Turkey before being overturned by the
French Constitutional Court.

Ankara, which is playing its cards warily with Armenia in the run-up
to the 2015 centennial anniversary of the massacre, does not appear
yet to have responded to Athens’ criminalization vote.

Nor, as yet, has Turkic strategic ally Azerbaijan, Armenia’s
enemy-number-one.

The two “brothers” are not generally quiet on such matters; the
Azerbaijani government, for instance, stepped up to the plate for
Turkey on France’s genocide-denial decision.

If it does choose to speak up in this latest case, Baku, arguably,
could grab some Greek ears.

Last year, the state-run regional energy player SOCAR (State Oil
Company of the Azerbaijani Republic) purchased a 66-percent stake in
the government-controlled gas-distribution network DESFA; the aim,
as Natural Gas Europe wrote, is for Greece to become ” a spring
board for [SOCAR’s] expansion further into Southeast Europe” via the
Trans-Adriatic Pipeline.

The gas will come courtesy of that conduit of choice, Turkey.

The European Commission has yet to approve the takeover, but both
Greece and Azerbaijan reportedly are as keen as ever.

Nothing, as yet, suggests that Baku plans to use this energy-card
to pressure or reprimand Athens over the genocide-denial bill. But
it does, in theory, give Azerbaijan a potentially influential hand
to play.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/69916

Safe Soldiers For A Safe Armenia

SAFE SOLDIERS FOR A SAFE ARMENIA

TransConflict
Sept 10 2014

By Edgar Khachatryan

Peace Dialogue, a member of the Global Coalition for Conflict
Transformation, is implementing a two-year project, ‘Safe Soldiers
for a Safe Armenia’, which aims to prevent human rights violations
in the armed forces and to increase not only the security of Armenia
but the security of the soldiers protecting it.

For many years, the issue of human rights in armed forces remains
one of the most urgent priorities for human rights groups. Today
the situation in the relatively young Armenian army concerns civil
society representatives and some international organizations. In their
reports, various independent public organizations indicate a high
degree of mortality among soldiers, expressing their concern about
regular violations and inaction by military investigative bodies and
a number of responsible military structures.

Armenia’s human rights activists estimate that since the cessation
of hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1994, as many as 1,500 young
men have died while serving in Armenian armed forces. The Armenian
Army was established in the early nineties as a result of the war
with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. The war is not technically
finished, despite the ceasefire. Regular ceasefire violations and
constant information warfare indicate that the previously open war
has become a hidden war. In 2013, approximately 30 to 31 people died
during so-called non-combat situations, but only five of these were
the result of ceasefire violations. The rest of the fatalities were
the result of murder, a lack of access to medical service for soldiers
with health issues, accidents and suicides. The fatalities continue
to happen until now and other negative occurrences are increasing in
frequency too.

In response to inquiries from watchdog groups in the country, the
Armenian Ministry of Defence states that these fatalities are just
solitary instances. A major part of society remains loyal to the
Armenian military, as the Army remains the main guarantor of security
for the conflict-affected country.

At the beginning of 2013, Peace Dialogue NGO has launched a new
website entitled ‘Safe Soldiers for a Safe Armenia’. It contains a
database on non-combat fatalities, deceased soldiers and human rights
violations recorded in the Armenian Armed Forces since the signing
of the cease-fire after the Nagorno-Karabakh war. As of today, the
on-line database includes more than 550 fatal cases.

The compilation of the database became possible due to information
received from media and watchdog groups working on human rights
protection in the armed forces, from victims’ relatives and successors,
as well as from information received from state bodies (the Ministry
of Defence, military investigative service, etc) in response to
numerous inquiries.

The aim of the database is to collect and spread information about
each fatal case and human rights violation in the Armenian Armed
Forces. In other words, according to the implementing staff, after
a while the website will become a full database that will help to:

Increase the sensitivity of the government towards the issue; Breakdown
public indifference towards human rights violations and abuses in the
Army amongst local and international society; Involve international
experts, local civil society representatives, and independent
researchers in studying the issue from different perspectives and in
designing alternative models that will best fit the Armenian context.

Visitors can also make their contribution to the completion of the
database by posting information or uploading photos or media materials
about fatalities or human rights violations in the army that have not
been recorded yet in the website or elsewhere. The staff working on
the website tried to list descriptions of the cases (places, dates
and causes etc.), the investigative processes initiated in regards
to those cases, as well as the following investigative and trial
processes and the violations revealed during those processes.

According to the implementing team, the ultimate effect of the website
will, for example, be the fact that quick updates about illegalities
and human rights violations recorded in any of the units and posted
by the witnesses can serve as an alarm for the authorities to take
necessary actions after they are clarified and approved.

In addition, the staff will continue to update various human
rights-related announcements and news releases. Certain sections of
the website include Armenian legislation regulating the relationship
between the armed forces and citizens; international agreements,
local regulations, documents, reports and publications, as well as
various research and expert opinions related to the topic.

As a result of this project, Peace Dialogue aims to raise awareness
in Armenian society about the troubling human rights situation in the
armed forces in order to create public demand for the solutions of the
problems and to mobilize and include local, national and international
actors who can have positive influence on current situation.

Edgar Khachatryan is the director of Peace Dialogue, a member of
the Global Coalition for Conflict Transformation. He specializes in
international peacebuilding trainings, consultancy and expertise
in gender and peace processes, violence prevention, and post-war
stabilization and recovery.

The website is prepared within the project Safe Soldiers for a Safe
Armenia of Peace Dialogue NGO, supported by Dutch organization Pax.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.transconflict.com/2014/09/safe-soldiers-safe-armenia-109/

Armenians And Erdogan

ARMENIANS AND ERDOGAN

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Sept 10 2014

Recep Tayyip Erdoðan (Photo: Today’s Zaman, Mustafa Kirazlý)

September 10, 2014, Wednesday/ 16:01:47/ by ALIN OZINIAN

Support from some Armenians — who most certainly are not a monolithic
Christian community — for the Justice and Development Party (AK
Party), appearing to have made peace with Islam, seemed odd in the
beginning.

According to those who believed that there could be no conciliation
between Christianity and Islam, Armenians should have supported
a secularist party. The support of people from different ethnic
or religious backgrounds for social democrat parties in Western
democracies has been common because social democrats guaranteed freedom
for these people and respected their religious or ethnic orientation.

In Turkey, however, we all know that secularism does not welcome
religious freedom, even concerning Islam, and focuses on protection
of the republican regime rather than the population of the country as
a whole. As such, minorities in this country during the republican
era were not only seen as a potential threat but also deliberately
weakened and undermined.

With this history in mind, part of the Armenian community in Turkey
welcomed Recep Tayyip Erdoðan, who promised EU membership as well as
freedom and equality. Minorities who were fearful of the conservative
mainstream attempted to assuage their fears with the notion that
a Muslim who would sincerely practice his religion would also be
attentive to the priorities and needs of members of other religions
as well. The AK Party was perceived as conservative but democratic in
those circles. Even when it was accused of promoting fundamentalist
activities, some Armenians still viewed the AK Party as a conservative,
not an Islamist, party. The Islamic tradition might have become the
architect of pro-freedom Turkish politics. This was the beacon of hope.

The AK Party administration, which since the 2000s frequently stressed
that it would remain committed to the EU process and Copenhagen
criteria, raised confidence among the Armenian community. In
2007, Mesrob Mutafyan, archbishop of the Armenian Patriarchate of
Constantinople, said in an interview with German Der Spiegel: “We
prefer the AK Party over the CHP. The AK Party is less nationalistic
vis-a-vis minorities. The Erdoðan government is more open to our
requests and concerns.” In this interview, he signaled that Armenians
would vote for Erdoðan.

The return of seized minority assets and properties was a first in
republican history, even though it was a gesture rather than the
recognition of a right. So, despite the shortcomings, this was a
huge shift. The state, for the first time, did not seize; instead,
it returned what it had seized. On the other hand, even the most
democratic wing of the opposition accused Erdoðan of favoring Armenians
in his dealings and decisions.

The issuance of the Non-Muslim Minorities Directive

In 2010, the prime minister issued a motion known as the Non-Muslim
Minorities Directive, in which the state admitted past mistakes and
misbehaviors and asked institutions and officials to act leniently
vis-a-vis minorities, pay attention to protecting their cemeteries,
comply with court rulings in land registry offices concerning
non-Muslim foundations, recognize the protocols of non-Muslim leaders
and take action against publications provoking enmity and animosity.

While part of the Armenian community was still suspicious, most of
them were happy with these developments.

There was, on the other hand, no opening in the 1915 case. Erdoðan
remained subscribed to the official thesis of 2005: “This never
happened in our history. Our belief does not allow genocide. We have
strong evidence to support this.” In 2008, he made the following
statement: “There is no such thing as genocide in our culture and
civilization. We cannot accept this accusation.” In 2011, he was still
committed to this stance: “They argue that Christians and Armenians
were massacred. On what basis are you raising this argument? We are
proud of our history. We do not have a history that would pose problems
to us. We can confront any incident in our past.” But Armenians were
still supporting the AK Party because nobody else would make a better
statement on this matter.

Erdoðan, who never referred to Armenians, Greeks, Jews and Assyrians
as Turkish in his speeches, said: “There are 170,000 Armenians in our
country. Seventy thousand are our citizens. But we are just tolerant
of the remaining 100,000. If necessary, I will send them to their
country.” The Aktamar Church was renovated and Erdoðan, who was trying
to present himself as a tolerant leader, consented to the placement
of a cross on the church four years later. In addition, Erdoðan did
not compromise on the policy of keeping the border gate with Armenia
closed, despite some occasional signs of leniency on this matter.

Erdoðan was warm and sincere in fast-breaking dinners that were
attended by official and non-official leaders of the Armenian
community. However, no sign of this sincerity was observed when it
came to identifying the murderers of Armenian women in Samatya and
of Sevag Balýkcý, who was serving in the military. The same spirit
existed in the evacuation of the Armenian village of Kessab in Syria
and the famous “hospitality” of Turkey.

In the message Erdoðan delivered one day before April 24 where, albeit
insincerely, he offered condolences to those who lost their lives
during World War, I which had some impact upon Armenians in Turkey.

After this message, everybody forgot about the fact that those who
studied Armenian issues at university were profiled. They also forgot
about the official-history lies taught in schools. They wanted to
forget the hope that their conditions could be improved.

Erdoðan prosecutor in Ergenekon case

In the Ergenekon case, Erdoðan initially presented himself as the
prosecutor of this case. In respect to the Hrant Dink murder, he said
they would not let the prosecution become blocked. But in the end,
the explanation behind this can be seen in the following statement:
“I believe that the Hrant Dink case is a personalized case. It was
committed because his views were not shared and embraced.”

The pledges for democracy and Westernization were replaced by
conservative and authoritarian realities. The struggle occurred
because Erdoðan felt he was powerful enough to pursue his own agenda.

Armenians were no longer valuable to the government.

In the republic’s history, minorities have been brutalized and
persecuted. For this reason, some Armenians hoped that they would be
better off under an AK Party administration after years of persecution
and brutality. We have to be realistic; they were right. The AK Party
treated Armenians in a way that the republic’s history is not familiar
with. But equal citizenship, which is the Armenian’s primary goal, was
never granted. In every case, the state’s interests were prioritized
over the interests of Armenians.

People have forgotten that the change was incomplete. It is time for
a new Turkey to be established through the restoration of the old
Turkey. Frankly speaking, in such turmoil and in this land where
hatred against those who are not Turk is naturalized, Erdoðan’s
offensive remarks against Armenians are not seen as “too much.” The
people who still applaud and support the AK Party would not care,
and some of Armenians would tolerate this “misunderstanding” anyway.

*Alin Ozinian is an independent analyst.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.todayszaman.com/op-ed_armenians-and-erdogan_358302.html

Russia’s Next Land Grab

RUSSIA’S NEXT LAND GRAB

The New York Times
Sept 10 2014

By BRENDA SHAFFERSEPT. 9, 2014

WASHINGTON — UKRAINE isn’t the only place where Russia is stirring up
trouble. Since the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, Moscow has routinely
supported secessionists in bordering states, to coerce those states
into accepting its dictates. Its latest such effort is unfolding in
the South Caucasus.

In recent weeks, Moscow seems to have been aggravating a longstanding
conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan while playing peacemaking
overlord to both. In the first week of August, as many as 40 Armenian
and Azerbaijani soldiers were reported killed in heavy fighting
near their border, just before a summit meeting convened by Russia’s
president, Vladimir V. Putin.

The South Caucasus may seem remote, but the region borders Russia,
Iran and Turkey, and commands a vital pipeline route for oil and
natural gas to flow from Central Asia to Europe without passing through
Russia. Western officials cannot afford to let another part of the
region be digested by Moscow — as they did when Russia separated
South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia, just to the north, in a
brief war in 2008, and when it seized Crimea from Ukraine this year.

Conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is not new. From 1992 to
1994, war raged over which former Soviet republic would control
the autonomous area of Nagorno-Karabakh, a mountainous region with a
large Christian Armenian population of about 90,000 within the borders
of largely Muslim Azerbaijan. The conflict has often been framed as
“ethnic,” but Moscow has fed the antagonisms. That war ended with an
Armenian military force, highly integrated with Russia’s military,
in charge of the zone. The war had killed 30,000 people and made
another million refugees.

Even today, Armenia controls nearly 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s
territory, comprising most of Nagorno-Karabakh and several surrounding
regions. Despite a cease-fire agreement since 1994, hostilities
occasionally flare, and Russian troops run Armenia’s air defenses.

Moscow also controls key elements of Armenia’s economy and
infrastructure.

More to the point, Russia has found ways to keep the conflict alive.

Three times in the 1990s, Armenia and Azerbaijan signed peace
agreements, but Russia found ways to derail Armenia’s participation.

(In 1999, for example, a disgruntled journalist suspected of having
been aided by Moscow assassinated Armenia’s prime minister, speaker
of Parliament and other government officials.)

An unresolved conflict — a “frozen conflict,” Russia calls it — gives
Russian forces an excuse to enter the region and coerce both sides.

Once Russian forces are in place, neither side can cooperate closely
with the West without fear of retribution from Moscow.

The latest violence preceded a summit meeting on Aug. 10 in Sochi,
Russia, at which Mr. Putin sought an agreement on deploying additional
Russian “peacekeepers” between Armenia and Azerbaijan. On July 31,
Armenians began a coordinated, surprise attack in three locations.

Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham H. Aliyev, and defense minister were
outside their country during the attack and Mr. Aliyev had not yet
agreed to attend the summit meeting. But the Armenian president,
Serzh A. Sargsyan, had agreed to; it’s unlikely that his military
would have initiated such a provocation without coordinating with
Russia. (The meeting went on, without concrete results.)

Before the meeting, Moscow had been tightening its grip on the South
Caucasus, with Armenia’s tacit support. Last fall, Armenia’s government
gave up its ambitions to sign a partnership agreement with the European
Union and announced that it would join Moscow’s customs union instead.

Renewed open warfare would give Russia an excuse to send in more
troops, under the guise of peacekeeping. Destabilizing the South
Caucasus could also derail a huge gas pipeline project, agreed to
last December, that might lighten Europe’s dependence on Russian fuel.

But astonishingly, American officials reacted to the current fighting
by saying they “welcome” the Russian-sponsored summit meeting. Has
Washington learned nothing from Georgia and Ukraine? To prevent
escalation of the Caucasus conflict, and deny Mr. Putin the pretext
for a new land grab, President Obama should invite the leaders of
Azerbaijan and Armenia to Washington and show that America has not
abandoned the South Caucasus. This would encourage the leaders to
resist Russia’s pressure. The United Nations General Assembly session,
which opens next week, seems like an excellent moment for such a
demonstration of support.

Washington should put the blame on Russia and resist any so-called
conflict resolution that leads to deployment of additional Russian
troops in the region.

Finally, the West needs a strategy to prevent Moscow from grabbing
another bordering region. Nagorno-Karabakh, however remote, is the
next front in Russia’s efforts to rebuild its lost empire. Letting the
South Caucasus lose its sovereignty to Russia would strike a deadly
blow to America’s already diminished ability to seek and maintain
alliances in the former Soviet Union and beyond.

Brenda Shaffer is a professor of political science at the University
of Haifa and a visiting researcher at Georgetown.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/opinion/russias-next-land-grab.html?_r=0

Proportion And Reality In An Age Of Mass Slaughter

PROPORTION AND REALITY IN AN AGE OF MASS SLAUGHTER

Patheos
Sept 10 2014

September 10, 2014
by Rebecca Hamilton

I started to use the phrase “age of genocide” in the title for this
post. But, on reflection, I decided that the word genocide, horrible
as it is, is actually too small.

Do we have a word to describe the organized mass slaughters of millions
of people by governments, and in the case of ISIS, wannabe governments?

It is not “just” genocide” because, in the case of some of these
mass slaughterers, such as Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao,
it was not a slaughter aimed at a discreet group of people so much as
it was aimed at anyone they could kill. Then we have the slaughtering
dictators such as Idi Amin, who certainly aimed much of his killing
at Christians, but also killed quite a few others, as well.

In fact, finding a “pure” genocide anywhere is way past difficult. The
Armenian genocide, which wiped out most of the Christian population of
Turkey (did anyone every wonder why that country is 99% Muslim?) and
the holocaust the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews, are the closest.

But the Nazis, even though they clearly stated, intended and nearly
accomplished the total annihilation of the Jewish people in their
conquered territories, also murdered whole seminaries of Catholic
priests, gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, liberals and the disabled.

The murder of Muslims in Bosnia (which United Nations troops,
including a lot of Americans, brought to a halt) is another example
of what might be at least an attempt at pure genocide.

What we are seeing in the Middle East today is, once again, a lot
bigger than “just” genocide. Like most genocidal murderers, ISIS is, at
base, just a bunch of murdering thugs. What that means in terms of what
they do is that they don’t stop at “just” murdering every Christian
and Yazidi they can kill. They also kill Muslims who don’t fit their
idea of what a “true” Muslim is, and they kill journalists in attempts
to extort ransom money, and they kill a lot of other people, as well.

They kill because they are cold-blooded murderers who have created
a religious excuse for being what they are.

That’s why the term genocide is too small for the organized slaughter
of innocents that has been taking place all over our globe since the
turn of the 20th Century. If we limit it to the organized attempts
to wipe out specific and discreet groups of people within a given
population, we will ignore the murderous destruction of millions of
other lives.

That’s how Stalin gets through the genocide sieve. He killed everybody.

Genocide as a word has a meaning that is too small for the organized
murdering that we are dealing with in today’s world. If that doesn’t
scare you, you probably don’t understand it.

Alongside this murdering fury that is the true hallmark by which our
times will be remembered in history, are the emotional reactions to
this savagery from its bystanders.

Members of the groups which are being slaughtered are often themselves
under attack or at least somewhat marginalized in the less murderous
societies in which they live. That was the case with Jews around the
world when the Nazis were gearing up their killing machine. Even
American Jews suffered social discrimination in terms of club
memberships and the names they were called.

That leads to a frozen-in-place non-response by those who should be
most equipped to help. Instead of rallying support for their persecuted
brethren, members of the same group often turn away and ignore their
plight. That certainly happened with the Jews.

Then, we have the subtle collaboration of news media and groups
who do not like their own neighbors who are members of groups being
persecuted in other lands. That fits the situation with Christian
persecution. I’ve experienced myself the aggressive bullying whose
motive is to silence anyone who talks about Christian persecution.

I’ve also witnessed the relative silence about it in the mainstream
media.

This is coupled with a group emphasis on anyone who does something
that can be used to either weaken concern for persecuted Christians
or to increase public dislike of them.

Witness the extraordinary emphasis given to the Westboro Baptist
Church, which is in fact, just about a dozen (or less) individuals
with signs. You would think, based on what has been written and said
in certain Christian-bashing circles, that they were the pope speaking
ex cathedra.

The same goes for one lone blog post which was written by a grievously
wrong Christian calling for the classic run-up to genocide against
Muslims. I’m going to write a full post on that alone as soon as I
finish writing this one. But before I do that, I want to discuss the
lack of proportion and reality with which it is being dealt.

First, in some Christian-bashing circles, their outraged coverage of
this one blog post from an obscure blog site is the only commentary
they’ve made about the mass slaughter of Christians in the Middle
East. These are often the same people who attack anyone who tries to
talk about Christian persecution.

I don’t take their outrage seriously because I see it as a targeted
outrage, designed to create prejudice against Christians and provide
tacit support for worldwide discrimination against and persecution of
Christians. I see these bloggers as enablers of violent persecution
of innocent people.

Second, we have the reaction of Muslim people who feel beleaguered
because of the hideous behavior of their co-religionists. See? They
seem to say. It’s not just us.

No. It’s not just them. Psychopathic murderers with government or
quasi government backing are a widespread phenomena that cross all
ethnic, religious (or non religious) groups. In light of this reality,
I think it’s time for us to lay down the “It’s them!” “It’s not just
us!” nonsense and simply acknowledge that murderers walk among us
and they will use any excuse to ply their trade.

And that this the point of this post. Genocide as a word is too small
for the mass murders we have seen for the past 100 years of human
history. There is no group of people innocent of these murdering
rampages.

If we are going to deal with these mass murders effectively and end
them, we must begin by looking at them with a sense of proportion
and in the light of reality. ISIS is nothing more than a gang of
extortionists and mass murderers. They can dress up in Halloween
costumes and claim that god is on their side all day long, and it
will not change the fact that they are cold-blooded, murdering savages
who have damned themselves before the real God.

Ditto for every other gang of murdering savages we’ve seen. Ted Bundy
we can execute. But when the Ted Bundys of this world get their hands
on philosophies and government, it takes a bit more than a flip of
the switch to end them.

Proportion, applied to ISIS and all their murdering type, requires
that we stop playing games with mass murder. There are some crimes
that have to be stopped, and the organized mass murder of innocents
is one of those crimes. We must not equate everything with this
one thing. Blog posts can be argued and their ideas scuttled. But
blog posts, however upsetting, are not the same thing as the actual
organized murder of innocents on a mass scale.

Reality requires that we acknowledge that there is no group of people
who can point their fingers at someone else and claim moral superiority
in this. Organized mass murder of innocents has become part of the
human story. If the history of this bloodshed has shown us anything,
it is that any group of people is capable of it.

I’ve referenced the wisdom of Alcoholics Anonymous before when I was
discussing the self-lies we tell. I will probably do it many times. AA
has a wisdom in dealing with self-lies that kill.

You must accept reality on reality’s terms.

That’s AA advice for recovering alcoholics and co-dependents. It is
wisdom for our time.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2014/09/proportion-and-reality-in-an-age-of-mass-slaughter/

New Ottomanism On Track

NEW OTTOMANISM ON TRACK

Mirror Spectator
Editorial 9-13

By Edmond Y. Azadian

No matter how much journalists and scholars question and ridicule
the Turkish leadership’s dream to recreate the Ottoman Empire in
the 21st century political realities, the newly appointed Turkish
Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and his boss, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
seem to be determined and steadfast in their ambitious plan.

Mr. Davutoglu does not miss any opportunity to glorify the Ottoman
Empire as a tolerant and benevolent ruler of other nations, without
asking the opinion of the groups and nations who have suffered at
the receiving end of that “benevolence.”

After being elected president, Mr. Erdogan delivered a farewell speech
as the retiring prime minister and extolled his party’s achievements
during the last 12 years of his Justice and Development Party (AKP)
rule. He also outlined his plans for “the new Turkey,” moving toward
“holy conquest” which promises to bring more prosperity, piety and
global influence.

In this scheme of things, Mr. Davutoglu has a pivotal role
to play, although the Economist casts a shadow on Davutoglu’s
ambitions. In its August 31 issue, the London-based weekly writes,
“The academic-turned-diplomat is criticized for the collapse of his
‘zero-problem with neighbors’ policy.” Further down, the weekly
continues, “Behul Ozkan, an academic who has studied Davutoglu, says
he sees himself as “infallible, as someone who is shaping history —
but whose dreams of building a Sunni Muslim realm of Turkish influence
spanning the Middle East and Balkans have proved empty.”

Undeterred by all those criticisms, the Erdogan-Davutoglu team is
continuing in its set course. Today, no political problem is resolved
in the Balkans without Ankara’s consent, participation or blessing.

During his first trip as president to Baku, in a joint press conference
with President Ilham Aliyev, Mr. Erdogan vowed that the political
agenda in the Caucasus would be set by Turkey and Azerbaijan.

Indeed, to make strong political statements, President Erdogan made
his first two visits to two potentially explosive regions, namely
Azerbaijan and northern Cyprus — the so-called Turkish Republic
of Northern Cyprus, recognized only by Turkey. He demonstrated his
intransigence in Cyprus, thumbing his nose at world public opinion and
international law, by perpetuating the 1974 occupation of 38 percent
of Cypriot territory by Turkish forces. The recent rapprochement
between Israel and Greece has hardened Turkish resolve even more
and the Cypriot and Israeli deal to exploit the gas reserves in the
Eastern Mediterranean has infuriated Mr. Erdogan to no end.

The Cypriot and Karabagh conflicts have many similarities,
though they are not identical in nature. Yet Turkey applies two
contradictory principals to the same problem; Mr. Erdogan defends
the self-determination rights of Turks in Cyprus and denies the same
for the people of Karabagh. The international community buys those
policies and even tries to justify them.

Greece, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally, and Cyprus,
a European Union (EU) member, would have to wait for a very long time
to see fellow NATO and EU members slap Turkey on the wrist, since
the US secretaries of state and defense, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel,
respectively, have just rushed to Ankara seeking Turkey’s cooperation
in defeating the Islamic State for Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), the
terrorist group which continues beheading American journalists.

All this, despite knowing that ISIS was Turkey’s creation. The
terrorist organization’s members were trained, armed and supplied
by Turkey and allowed to cross into Syria and Iraq from the Turkish
border. In fact, in Aleppo, Armenians have been at the receiving
end of their firepower. After all the outrage that ISIS has caused,
Turkey is still reluctant to join a collation to stop the barbarism.

We read in a recent Reuter’s article, “Turkey’s dilemma illustrates
the sort of challenge that Kerry faces pulling together an active
collation among states with very different interests and constraints
in the region.”

In the same article, Henri Barkey, a Lehigh University professor
and former member of the State Department policy planning staff,
predicts that “they will not allow the use of Incirlik [US air base]
for lethal strikes.”

The US and the West armed Turkey to such an extent that it boasts
of having the strongest army in the NATO structure, after the US. It
also helped Turkey to develop its economy, so that today Ankara can
implement an independent policy, undermining its allies. It is because
of unreliable partners like Turkey that the US is not able to develop
a coherent policy to stop ISIS immediately.

President Obama’s hesitation has given ammunition to his opponents
and journalists to satirize his statement of “leading from behind”
or “we have no strategy yet.” However, that policy has a silver
lining in engaging Iran in the fight. It so happens that the US and
Iranian polices in destroying ISIS coincide, but in this case, my
enemy’s enemy still remains my enemy. The US is dragging Iran into
the conflict to overstretch and exhaust its forces, since the latter
is already heavily engaged in Syria.

It looks like Turkey will be the beneficiary of another political
windfall, if we believe Armenia-based journalist Igor Muradian,
who seems to have many intriguing political sources. In an article
in lragir.am, on September 4, titled “Turkey Isn’t Asleep: Russia’s
Fragmentation Plan,” he reports on a secret gathering in Ukraine: “In
late August and early September, a conference with a strange agenda
was organized in one of the beautiful towns of southern Ukraine. A
large group of experts from Turkey, Azerbaijan, Tataria, Chuvashia,
Gagauzia, Crimea and many other republics and communities from the
Volga basin and North Caucasus were attending.”

The agenda comprised US and NATO policy in the Black Sea region,
the Crimean Tatar problem and the possibility of the fragmentation of
the Russian Federation, giving rise to the emergence of independent
and sovereign states on its territory.

If the collapse of the Soviet Empire was unthinkable and it happened,
nothing can be ruled out in today’s political climate. President
Putin called the fall of the Soviet Union “the most catastrophic
geostrategic tragedy of the 20th century.”

The Soviet Union imploded because the system had itself sown the seeds
of self-destruction. Of course, those factors were further activated
under pressure from the empire’s adversaries.

In case of the disintegration of the Russian Federation, there is a
belt of Turkic nations extending from Azerbaijan to Central Asia,
ready to form the new Ottoman Empire, a dream which Enver Pasha
pursued, but did not see realized, as he was killed in Bukhara.

Today, with the Cold War winds blowing again, they may exacerbate the
fault lines in the federation. Because of the falling birth rate, the
number of Slavic people is shrinking and the Islamic groups are growing
at a rapid rate. Mr. Putin can hardly keep the lid on smoldering
tensions in Chechnya. It is believed that Chuvashia is becoming a
restive region. Everybody witnessed that in Crimean referendum the
most vocal ethnic group that voted against Ukraine’s union with Russia
was the Tatars. The Tatars have legitimate grievances, since they have
ruled Crimea for many centuries, sometimes falling under Ottoman rule,
which extended all the way to Crimea. Mr.

Davutoglu publicly came to the Tatars’ defense as former Ottoman
subject/allies.

Two major wars were fought between the Russian and Ottoman empires
in the 19th century. The Tatars even had a republic after the Soviet
rule (1921-1944) until Stalin deported 238,500 Tatars to Central Asia
because they had cooperated with the Nazis during the German occupation
(1941-44) of Crimea. That elevated the Russian ethnic profile on the
peninsula, until Sergey Khrushchev annexed the region of his native
Ukraine in 1954 and Putin undid that annexation this year.

In addition to the restive Muslim groups within the Russian Federation,
an uneasy cohabitation is manifest between Russia on one side and
Kazakhstan and Belarus on the other side in the Customs’ Union,
which Mr. Putin is crafting, as a counterpart to the European Union.

Adding to the mix of these problems is the fact that Russia’s Far
East, with all it natural resources, is depopulated. This paves the
way for Chinese settlers, whom China might one day defend, like Mr.

Putin wishes to defend Russians living in Ukraine and “near abroad.”

This is a pretty gloomy scenario, which is whetting the appetite of
Mr. Erdogan, who was hailed recently in Azerbaijan as the “standard
bearer of new Ottomanism.”

As if Soviet domination over Armenia was not bad enough, now the
specter of new Ottomanism looms on its border.

From: Baghdasarian

Emigration to be discussed in Armenian parliament

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Sept 8 2014

Emigration to be discussed in Armenian parliament

8 September 2014 – 5:39pm

The head of the Armenian National Congress, the ANC secretary Aram
Manukyan and the head of the Heritage faction, Rubik Hakobyan proposed
today to discuss the issue of emigration in the parliament.

Manukyan called the issue important noting that in the recent months
NGOs have conducted studies on demographic changes in Armenia. They
now find it necessary to present the results of their research to the
parliament, epress.am reports.

From: Baghdasarian

Barriers to Resolving Nagorno-Karabakh

New Eastern Europe
Sept 8 2014

Barriers to Resolving Nagorno-Karabakh

Published on Monday, 08 September 2014 10:05
Commentary Written by Eduardo Lorenzo Ochoa

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was back on the front pages of the
international press this summer after a deadly escalation and more
than 30 casualties since the signing of the ceasefire agreement in
1994 by Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. As usual, both sides
accuse each other of having shot first and therefore being responsible
for the situation.

The maintenance of the world’s only self-regulated ceasefire

Recently, critical voices have risen regarding the work of the OSCE
Minsk Group, which has been in charge for the last 20 years to find a
commonly agreed settlement to the conflict. To a lesser extent, the
European Union has also been questioned. It is true that a
satisfactory solution of the conflict has not been found yet, but it
is equally true that a new large-scale war with dramatic consequences
not only for the South Caucasus, but for the entire world – and
particularly for oil dependant economies – has been avoided.

Since 1994, the OSCE Minsk Group has put forward five different
framework proposals to both sides to achieve a final settlement of the
conflict. Four of them were rejected but one remains on the table.
Obviously it starts with the basics, by creating a level of confidence
between both sides, one that is incompatible with the constant
shootings in the Nagorno-Karabakh-Azerbaijan line of contact resulting
in senseless casualties.

The OSCE Minsk Group has also worked along this line. In June 2012,
the co-chairs once again proposed two very logical steps in order to
avoid the loss of human lives in the only self-regulated ceasefire
agreement in the world. The first was to establish an investigation
mechanism for ceasefire violations. The aim would be to have an
understanding as to which side is responsible for the shootings and
ultimately to reduce these deadly incidents.

The second proposed measure was the withdrawal of all snipers from the
line of contact. To the surprise of many, both proposals were rejected
by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan. In its opinion,
proposals would only strengthen the status quo. Obviously, the
implementation of both measures would have spared 30 families the loss
of their sons, as well as many others earlier, yet unfortunately for
the Azerbaijani administration their soldiers seem to be expendable.

This approach becomes even clearer when one analyses the nature of the
military operations that this South Caucasus country is carrying out
lately against Nagorno-Karabakh, not only at the beginning of August
but also in July. In fact, more and more often Azerbaijani commandoes
are ordered to break into the Nagorno-Karabakh territory and even into
the territory of the Republic of Armenia, whose superiors know clearly
that it is the way of no return.

Under these circumstances it is obvious that any mediating effort
either by the OSCE Minsk Group or any other organisation becomes
extremely challenging and progress is tremendously difficult to
achieve.

European Union efforts in Nagorno-Karabakh

Simultaneously, the EU has tried to launch some complementary
supporting measures to the OSCE Minsk Group mediating efforts in
recent years.

Firstly, the EU has launched programmes to reinforce democracy in the
South Caucasus – just like in any other neighbouring and Eastern
Partnership country. Progress was made both in Armenia and Georgia,
while the picture in Azerbaijan, according to the annual country
report published by the EU, is turning darker. The quality of the
electoral processes are seriously degrading while at the same time
opposition parties even belonging to EU political families are
systematically harassed by national security forces, impeding
activities of political dissidents. Azerbaijan even overtook Belarus
in the record of having the highest number of political prisoners
among all the Eastern Partnership countries.

In addition, this repressive wave has been extended to civil society
and human rights activists, jeopardising one of the most promising
initiatives by the EU in this field: the civil society confidence
building measures. This EU-sponsored action consists of reinforcing
civil society and gathering organisations from Azerbaijan,
Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia around cooperation projects in different
fields in order to facilitate communication and mutual understanding.
Unfortunately, many of the NGO representatives who were involved in
these programmes were arrested, putting this initiative in
standby-mode. It is difficult to build confidence between both sides
when Azerbaijani citizens can’t even call or exchange e-mails with
Armenians due to a firewall established by their own administration.

Under these circumstances one can easily understand the systematic
absence of the Republic of Azerbaijan in the EU human rights dialogue
platform, as well as the categorical and legitimate refusal of the
people living in Nagorno-Karabakh to pass under Azerbaijani ruling, no
matter the level of autonomy that this country may grant them.

In the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, there is unfortunately a clear
track of escalation: in the number of casualties and the calibre of
weapons used by Azerbaijan; in the statements by the Azerbaijani
President e.g.: “just as we have beaten the Armenians on the political
and economic fronts, we are able to defeat them on the battlefield”;
and in the victims targeted by Azerbaijan which, for the past four
years, has targeted civilians both in Armenia and in Karabakh.

Looking at the full picture of Azerbaijani politics, both internally
and in terms of foreign policy, it seems to dangerously follow the
same pattern as other totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century. It is
similar to that of the last Argentinian Military Junta, chaired by
Leopoldo Galtieri, trying desperately to find an external enemy, the
United Kingdom, in order to cover up the internal deep discontent and
absence of democracy and pluralism, while smashing any opposition,
followed by catastrophic consequences for the country in 1982.

One of the fundamental problems of this conflict is that the sides do
not share the same scale of values which is a necessary condition for
its settlement. In this regard, Azerbaijan has still a long democratic
way to go and that is why the EU complementary measures to the
mediators are especially relevant in terms of human rights, democracy
building and the rule of law.

Finally, all these elements that are surely taken into consideration
by the OSCE Minks Group should also be taken into account by those
that question the only commonly agreed framework to settle the
conflict.

Eduardo Lorenzo Ochoa is the Director of European Friends of Armenia.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.neweasterneurope.eu/articles-and-commentary/1320-barriers-to-resolving-nagorno-karabakh

Will secrets of the Nairit factory be unveiled?

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Sept 7 2014

Will secrets of the Nairit factory be unveiled?

7 September 2014 – 6:27pm

Employees of the largest chemical factory in Armenia, “Nairit”,
protest in front of the government building

Will secrets of the Nairit factory be unveiled?
Employees of the largest chemical factory in Armenia, “Nairit”,
protest in front of the government building
Susanna Petrosyan, Yerevan. Exclusively for VK

On September 4 workers of one of the largest chemical factories in
Armenia, “Nairit”, staged a protest in front of the government
building. They demanded that the government pay them 18 monthly
salaries which the government owes them. The proposal of Minister of
Energy Yervand Zakarian to pay them one month’s salary was met without
enthusiasm. The minister said that the government will solve the
problems of the factory and its employees.

This is not the first protest organized by Nairit workers. This has
been going on for more than four years. Even during the election
campaign, Serzh Sargsyan said that he had the political will to
relaunch the factory. However, to this day the situation has not
changed.

“Nairit” was the largest producer of chloroprene rubber in the USSR.
Problems started with the collapse of the Union. Armenia, in a state
of war, and having serious socio-economic problems, was not able to
solve the problems of the giant, aimed at servicing the whole Soviet
Union.

“Nairit” worked with varying degrees of success: at times certain
production departments were working, at other times they remained
closed in connection with serious financial problems. One of the
reasons for the crisis was the decreasing demand for chloroprene
rubber in the world due to the economic crisis. Moreover, it is faced
with a clear challenge of upgrading the outdated technology, paying
debts for rent, electricity, gas, etc..

Wage arrears, which currently amount to about $13 million, are by far
not the only financial problem of the factory. According to
information announced in February, the total debt of the plant is $400
million.

In 2006, “Nairit” was purchased by the British company Rhinovile
Property, which owns a 90% stake, the remaining 10% is owned by the
government. However, despite the new owner, many problems remained
unresolved. According to the former factory director, Karen Israelian,
if Rhinoville Property fulfilled its investment obligations on time
and invested the promised 60 million dollars in upgrading the plant,
“Nairit” would not be in the situation it is now. Israelian believes
that the government, with its 10% stake, should also be accountable,
because it did not pressure the British company.

The Armenian press reports that “Nairit” began to acquire debt
starting from 2006, when Rhinoville Property opened a credit line
worth $70 million with the CIS Interstate Bank. In 2009, the bank gave
the company a loan of $90 million, and an additional $10 million in
the next year. Given that in 2010 the plant was shut down and its
owners have not paid a penny to the creditor, the debt more than
doubled. Moreover, in March 2014 the Moscow Arbitration Court granted
a right to the CIS Interstate Bank to demand $107,950,000 from
Rhinoville Property.

However, it is not only a question of paying penalties for financial
noncompliance. The Armenian government has still not provided an
answer to the question of when and on what the $170 million loan was
spent? In February this year the parliamentary opposition accused the
now former Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan, whose two brothers have
occupied the directorial seat of “Nairit”, of deliberately bankrupting
the factory. The ex-prime minister denied any involvement of his
brothers in it. Sargsyan, during whose premiership the second and
third tranches of the loan were allocated, said he knew nothing about
the fate of the $170 million. Law enforcement agencies have also not
been paying due attention to the fate of the loan.

Given the scandal, the government has initiated negotiations with
Rosneft. In December 2013 the Ministry of Energy of Armenia and the
Russian company Rosneft, as well as Pirelli Tyre Russia SpA and Oil
Techno, signed a Memorandum of Understanding in Yerevan. The
memorandum provides for the establishment of a joint venture for the
production of styrene-butadiene rubber in Armenia at the Nairit plant.
Rosneft will play the role of the leading investor in the project.

The head of the Ministry of Energy said that in one month Rosneft is
expected to present its findings about the possibility of relaunching
“Nairit”. It is still not clear whether the Russian company will want
to go ahead with the plan and pay the $400 million debt of the plant,
given the obscure history of the company and the mysterious
disappearance of the loan. Yervand Zakarian’s words during a meeting
with the participants of the protest on September 4 is tacit proof of
it. In his speech he mentioned that the Armenian government should not
rely only on Rosneft and needs to develop its own plan for the
rehabilitation of the plant. He also said that, on behalf of the prime
minister, the government is currently developing a package of measures
which will help relaunch the plant. It will be submitted by September
15.Employees of the largest chemical factory in Armenia, “Nairit”,
protest in front of the government building

From: Baghdasarian

http://vestnikkavkaza.net/analysis/economy/59689.html