Hrant Bagratyan: Sanctions will have tangible impact on Armenia

Hrant Bagratyan: Sanctions will have tangible impact on Armenia

ArmInfo’s interview with Hrant Bagratyan, well-known economist,
liberal-reformist, former prime minister of Armenia

by Emmanuil Lazarian

Saturday, August 2, 11:08

Mr. Bargatyan, how much will the West’s sectoral sanctions affect the
economy of Russia, a country having close economic ties and strategic
partnership with Armenia?

Well, the economic growth in Russia in Q1 of the current year was
0.9%, while in May, there was no growth at all. GDP for the second
quarter was not published. Actually, the Russian economy is shrinking.
Speaking of the direct impact of the sectoral sanctions of the U.S.
and Europe on the GDP, by different assessments it starts from a 0.2%
growth up to tangible decline. At the same time, share index may
decline by up to 25%. Although oil prices are so far stable and make
up some $100 dollars per barrel, a budget deficit is quite probable.
In this light, both the president and the government are reluctant to
use the National Prosperity Fund. And the worst thing in this
situation is the predicted capital flight that may reach 150-200
billion US dollars by the end of the year. These are mainly the funds
of foreign investors that will be taken off the Russian assets.
Foreign investor will be getting rid of the shares of the Russian
companies that are affected by the Western sanctions. As sanctions
pile up, the Russian economy loses sources of financing and technical
development.

I am sure that Russia gave the West a handle to affect and even
destroy the Russian economy. Russia fell short thinking that it
depends on the West as much as the West depends on it. The West went
on more measures even against its own companies operating in Russia.
I’d like to reiterate that the major problem for Russia would be the
capital flight and restricted access to technologies.

Some Russian analysts have other arguments. They say every dark cloud
has a silver lining, and the sanctions will stimulate Russia towards
import substitution. They often bring the example of Iran’s economic
improvement.

As a professional economist and a man that occupied the post of the
prime minister for several years, I’d say that any talks about import
substitution are pure and unadulterated speculations and even
nonsense. We live in the world where there is cooperation and division
of labor. If you are involved in these processes, you will keep
developing. If you are not involved, you will develop on the model of
the USSR, and everything will collapse one day. Iran, of course,
showed rather good economic growth from time to time, but its economy
failed to sustain the global competition and began shattering. Believe
me, economy must be reproduced in a bigger area. For instance, economy
of such big state as Russia ought to be reproduced in the global
economy to either prove its efficiency or not. If the economy develops
locally, like it was in the Soviet Union, it will inevitably lead to
empty stores and deficit, despite the economic growth. Sure, import
substitution may have a short-term effect, but it will be a very much
expensive reproduction. In the Soviet Union construction of a square
meter of housing ate up more resources than in the West, because no
one even thought of introducing more effective construction
technologies that existed at that moment.

Well, but there is another argument that Russian experts bring calling
not to be afraid of the sanctions. I mean the oil and gas incomes of
the country. Isolation of Russia’s energy facilities will lead to
price hikes in the market of energy resources. Russia as a supplier of
energy resources to the world markets will manage to recompense its
losses from the sanctions.

Over half of Russia’s budget revenues are from the oil and gas sector.
However, there is not so much oil in Russia. There have been many
talks lately about the need to develop new deposits. In the West they
are well aware of that and it was for a reason that the sanctions
applied to the technological field i.e. the supply of equipment for
development of deposits and for the processing industry has been
restricted. Generally, Russia’s share in the global oil production is
significant, but not major. A significant part of it is used to
produce fuel oil and aviation kerosene. In the given segment Russia’s
place is also modest enough. As regards the gas field, the situation
may be even worse there. Shale gas recovery has been intensified both
in Europe and the USA. Moreover, western countries began actively
using alternative sources of energy. By 2020 over 20% of energy in
Europe will be based on alternative sources.

In addition, the Trans-Anatolian gas pipeline (TANAP) construction
will be launched intensively. The pipeline will cover over 1/4 of
Europe’s demand for gas…

You are quite right, new projects of energy pipelines passing by
Russia are being developed. Some big European countries that very much
depend on the Russian gas, for instance Germany and Italy, may demand
a guaranteed access to certain energy resources from the U.S. There
are enough possibilities for their replacement i.e. Qatar, Norway,
Scotland, Northern Sea. I am sure that the trend towards rapprochement
with Iran pursues the same goal.

One more argument: if the West turns back on us, we will go to the
East. What do you think of the idea to get closer with China and form
a huge common market with it – something like a global power center?

It is impossible. China will always be limiting its relations with
Russia. China is a country that built the Chinese Wall, don’t forget
about that. Moreover, Russia is wary of China. These countries have
very different demographic situations. Russia will not open its
borders to China and will not increase the share of the Chinese ethnos
in the Far East, for the known reasons. Hypothetically, I have thought
of a triumvirate China-Japan-Russia that could dominate in the global
economy, but I realize that such triumvirate is impossible. The
Chinese will never have good relations with the Japanese. The
relations with the Russians will never be good enough either.

In addition, a ‘blow’ on Russia is in favor of China. But for the
situation with Ukraine, the West would have to make blows on China, as
the latter has almost achieved as high level of development as Europe.
Furthermore, in such situation, if China gets closer with Russia, the
West, and the U.S. first of all, will impose sanctions on China.
Taking a deeper look, there are many fields where China and Russia
compete. For instance, China seeks to flood the world with its
technologies, solar stations, but Russia with its traditional energy
is an obstacle on that way. A closer cooperation and partnership is
possible, of course, in some fields, but no more. Therefore, it is not
within the interests of China to make Russia stronger and act against
the West. China is more than the U.S. interested in weakening Russia’s
economy. China has 4 trillion dollars currency reserves in the USA. A
weaker economy in the U.S. and Europe is not in favor of China. These
countries are the main sales markets of the Chinese products. That is
why it is obvious that China will be waging a very cautious policy. No
Russian-Chinese tandem is possible. It is senseless.

How much will the sanctions against Russia affect the Customs Union?
Don’t you think that the U.S. seeks to kill two birds with one stone?
They seek to weaken Russia, on the one hand, and create a mess in the
CU and prevent formation of the EAEU, on the other hand. May Russia’s
allies in the EAEU face any informal sanctions by the West?

I think the West does not plan to hit the Customs Union. The U.S. will
not affect the economy of Kazakhstan. They need that country as an
energy partner. However, they may make Belarus suffer with Russia. As
for Armenia, I am sure they don’t care for us. However, if it turns
out that Armenia uses Russian companies to get out off the blockade,
Armenia will sure get a serious warning.

In the same way as the U.S. regularly closed our possibilities of
cooperation with Iran in some fields. At least, remember the situation
with re-export of the so-call double purpose equipment.

Sure. I mean 17% of Armenia’s economy is in the hands of Russian
companies. Some of them have already been affected by the sanctions.
It is very bad. I am sure that the leaderships of those Russian
companies have already demanded their subsidiaries, including the
Armenian ones, to reduce capital expenses. I would do the same, if I
headed one of those companies.

Do you suppose that sanctions will affect also our economy?

These sanctions will affect us, whether we want it or not. As for the
Customs Union, it is not favorable for Russia to see Armenia as its
member at present. Figuratively speaking, if I were in the Kremlin, I
would not do that. Armenia is a chance for Russia to open a small
window to the world in conditions of the sanctions. Armenia must not
hurry to the CU either. Our country with its liberal regime of WTO
membership may still be useful, at least, for the relations with Iran.
The U.S. will not punish Armenia. Don’t forget about the strong
Armenian lobby in the USA that will stand up for Armenia. After all,
why should they punish us? What is our guilt? I think Armenia must not
join any union now, even if there were no crisis in Ukraine. Another
matter that they in Russia may not understand that. It seems to me
sometimes that the Kremlin governs very crudely, without any
constructive and impartial analysis of the situation. They do not
think of the consequences of their steps.

What consequences it will have for our economy? I think, first of all,
transfers will decrease. This may affect macro-stability.

Consequences of the sanction will affect Armenia much. As for the
transfers, I think they will not decrease, as on the one hand, they
should decrease because of falling of the Russian economy and incomes
of the population, but on the other hand, it is necessary to take into
consideration the growth of the migration flow to Russia. The number
of the Armenians which transfer money from Russia to Armenia have been
growing every year. This may compensate losses, and everything depends
on the falling rate of the Russian economy. About 50 thsd people that
left Armenia last year, are not yet able to transfer money, buy in a
year or two, they will start transferring money to their native land.
However, we are not aware about the specific situation in this sphere,
as we have no serious analysis of the situation by Central Bank.
Nevertheless, I should say that we shall not have the expected further
growth of transfers. I see risks in the energy sector, the great
majority of the assets of which belong to Russian companies. There
will be no new investments and development. The contracts between
Armenia and Russia on energy resources delivery do not let us develop
alternative sources. And it is not ruled out that Russian energy
companies may again apply for raising of tariffs for consumers. There
are certain risks in the financial sphere too, especially in the
context of limitation of sources of the Armenian business crediting.
There are also risks in the context of narrowing of the export
potential of Armenia at the Russian market because of decrease of the
consumer demand there. We should not wait for the Russian aid to
Armenia in the form of stabilizing credits either, like in 2009. The
sanctions may also affect the needed level of preferences when Armenia
joins the Customs Union. And finally, if US’s approach to the
sanctions is extremely harsh, they can also warn us in a harsh way. As
you know, US ambassador to Armenia has already made a statement on the
matter.

But it is no secret that something useful may be taken from any
complex situation. If we take into consideration that Russia may need
import substitution, in that case, Armenian companies will have a
limitless market for the export of agriculture produce, diary
products, mineral water, etc. But unfortunately, experience showed
that we are rather unbusinesslike when using such opportunities.
Perhaps, Armenian building companies will make use of the open niche
at the building market of Russia, where Moldavians and Ukrainians have
been actively working now. But the innovation level of our building
branch is quite low and lags behind our opponents. Will the Russians
seriously take it and how will the West react?

Another positive thing is that in this context, we have to wait for
sharp growth of the economic relations with Iran. Iran’s role will
grow, and the trend of Iran’s rapprochement with external world
continues, Iranian capitals may inflow into Armenia, including such
braches of economy, as engineering, machine tool building, etc, that
were earlier non-available because of sanctions. Fortunately, the
staff potential of Armenia has not been exhausted yet.

The new geopolitical situation will enhance Azerbaijan’s role but may
also enhance the demand for Armenia. Therefore, no wonder the West has
started speeding up the settlement of the Armenian-Azeri conflict,
which should be transformed into an Azeri-Karabakh one. But it is
already another matter.

Õ388770-1A13-11E4-947A0EB7C0D21663

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid

Armenia’s state debt jumps to over $4.5bn in one month

Armenia’s state debt jumps to over $4.5bn in one month

11:56 * 02.08.14

Armenia’s total state debt increased by 0.13% (or $6,26,000) to
4,556,900 US Dollars in June, with the foreign debt seeing a decline
against the backdrop of the surging domestic debts.

Sources from the National Statistical Service have told the state news
agency Armenpress that the foreign state debt decreased by 15,700,000
US Dollars to 3,850,400,000 Armenian Drams (approx $9,500,000) in the
above period.

Most of the foreign debt- 3,373,200,000 US Dollar – falls to the lot
of the Government, with that of the Central Bank amounting to
477,300,000 US Dollars.

As for the domestic debt, it reached 706,500,000 US Dollars at the end
of June (surging by $21.7m). Most of the money – 671,700,000 US
Dollars – is due to the state bonds purchased by residents.

The state bonds in foreign currencies amounted to 26,500,000 US
Dollars, with the loans and credits making up 6 million and the
domestic guarantees – 2.3 million.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.tert.am/en/news/2014/08/02/armenia-debt/

Armenia needs to revise its position on Russia – opinion

Armenia needs to revise its position on Russia – opinion

15:12 * 02.08.14

The extremely high-tensions between Russia and the West herald the
beginning of a third world war, an Armenian analyst has said, calling
for efforts to revise the country’s pro-Russian foreign policy
orientation.

“For me, it is obvious that this resistance will lead to Russia’s
defeat. This kind of resistance existed decades ago when the USSR-West
relations were on the agenda, but the USSR was stronger then compared
to the present-day Russia, with the West not being so powerful as it
is today,” Director of the Yerevan-based Modus Vivendi Center Ara
Papyan told a news conference on Saturday.

“Russia will be a loser in such a situation, as the West and the
United States are sure to reach their goal. We see the West enforcing
sanctions against Russia, and we also observe that it has switched
over from individuals to specific sectors,” he noted.

The expert said he thinks that Russia needs time to perceive the
consequences of the Western sanctions, adding that the country is
highly likely to experience the crisis of the early 1990’s (early
post-Soviet years).

“It is bad for us, but it never depends on us. These sanctions will
essentially impact Armenia’s economy. The situation of Russian
companies operating in Armenia will deteriorate, affecting our
economy. We are also aware that many individuals get their income in
the form of remittances from the Russian Federation ,” the expert
said, not ruling out the possibility of heavier loses for Armenia.

Papyan warned at the end that Armenia’s unilateral position on Russia
will cause serious problems in the country’s relations with the West
which he said is the only power capable of restraining Turkey.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.tert.am/en/news/2014/08/02/Ara-papian/

Environ 8000 tonnes d’abricots devraient être récoltés en Arménie en

ARMENIE
Environ 8000 tonnes d’abricots devraient être récoltés en Arménie en 2014

Environ 8000 tonnes d’abricots devraient être récoltés en Arménie
cette année a déclaré le vice-ministre de l’Agriculture Garnik
Petrosyan.

86 000 tonnes ont été récoltées dans le pays en 2013 soit 12 000
tonnes de plus que ce qui avait été prédit.

“Le froid de Mars a frappé durement les jardins d’abricot, et donc
nous nous attendons à aucune bonne récolte cette année,” a-t-il dit.

Les dommages infligés à l’agriculture de l’Arménie par les chutes de
neige, la grêle et les vents froids est évaluée à 11 milliards de
drams (environ 27 millions $), selon les calculs préliminaires.

samedi 2 août 2014,
Stéphane (c)armenews.com

From: Baghdasarian

L’Arménien Ichkhan Zakarian, candidat à la mairie de Sotchi (Russie)

RUSSIE
L’Arménien Ichkhan Zakarian, candidat à la mairie de Sotchi (Russie)

Membre du parti >, l’arménien Ichkhan Zakarian est tête
de liste pour les municipales de Sotchi (Russie). Il vise le poste de
maire de Soctchi. Ichkhan Zakarian est né en 1977 à Akhalkalak la
région de Géorgie à forte majorité de population arménienne. A Sotchi,
Ichkhan Zakarian est à la tête de la société >. Pour
l’heure, deux autres candidats pour les municipales de Sotchi sont
connus, Alexei Botchgariov et Igor Vassiliev. Le maire actuel Anatoli
Pakhomov (parti Yedinaya Rossia) est également candidat à son poste.
Les élections sont prévues le 14 septembre prochain.

Krikor Amirzayan

samedi 2 août 2014,
Krikor Amirzayan (c)armenews.com

From: Baghdasarian

Minister Of Healthcare – Artsakh

Minister Of Healthcare – Artsakh

Thu, Jul 24th, 2014

Competitive Healthcare Sector

Prof. Harutyun M. Kushkyan, Minister of Healthcare

Prof. Harutyun M. Kushkyan, Minister of Healthcare, discusses the
government’s goals for the healthcare sector. He also highlights the
sector’s appeal for international investors.

European Times: What are your ministry’s major goals for the healthcare sector?

Prof. Harutyun Kushkyan: We want to have a competitive healthcare
sector that develops continuously. We are committed to providing the
best possible healthcare system, with strong medical institutions,
advanced technologies, and qualified doctors and nurses. We expect
positive results. We are cooperating with the Republic of Armenia,
Russia and Europe as well as specialists from all over the world. We
send our medical staff to be trained abroad, and we will soon be
sending medical teams to the US for a special training programme. We
also provide specialised equipment to medical institutions in
Stepanakert and other administrative territories throughout the
Republic to best serve the needs of our citizens.

European Times: What opportunities does Nagorno Karabakh’s healthcare
sector offer for international investors?

Prof. Harutyun Kushkyan: We have created favourable conditions for
investment in the healthcare sector and we have already received
substantial investments. The main guarantee for these investments is a
policy passed by the President of the Republic and other
government-supported programmes. Investment projects include Tashir
Group’s state-of-the-art Republican Medical Centre in Stepanakert,
which has a cardiology division that can perform cardiac surgery.
Together with our French partners, we have also established an
oncology department in this centre.

European Times: How do you encourage investments in the pharmaceuticals sector?

Prof. Harutyun Kushkyan: No pharmaceuticals are being produced in
Nagorno Karabakh at present. We import high-quality pharmaceuticals at
reasonable prices from our import partners. I would welcome investment
in pharmaceuticals manufacturing here, and our Ministry will do
everything possible to assist investors in pharmaceuticals or in any
healthcare-related project. As a physician, I am dedicated to ensuring
good health for our citizens. We are also working to improve quality
of life for local residents.

European Times: What is your personal message to potential
international partners and investors?

Prof. Harutyun Kushkyan: Our Ministry is very transparent, and we are
working to provide high-quality healthcare services for all people in
Nagorno Karabakh. The Government has created a favourable, safe
environment for foreign investors, and there are many opportunities
for investment in healthcare facilities, pharmaceuticals, health
tourism and more. We invite people to come here and see for themselves
what our country can offer.

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.european-times.com/sector/minister-healthcare-artsakh/

Georgian presidential aide meets Armenian bishop

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
July 29 2014

Georgian presidential aide meets Armenian bishop

29 July 2014 – 6:44pm

Georgian presidential aide for ethnic minorities Sofio Shamanidi has
met Vazgen Mirzakhanyan, the bishop of the Armenian Church’s Georgian
diocese, Azerbaijani news agency Trend reports.

The parties discussed the life of the Armenian community in Georgia
and inter-ethnic relations in the country. They also condemned the
fight between Georgians and Armenians which occurred on July 19th in
front of an Armenian church.

From: Baghdasarian

Radio fixated on white male presenters, says George Donikian

The Age, Australia
July 31 2014

Radio fixated on white male presenters, says George Donikian

Neil McMahon

Meet George Donikan, Irishman.

When Greek-Armenian broadcaster George Donikian was establishing
himself in radio four decades ago, his ethnic origins presented a
problem. So he agreed to fake them.

“I wanted to be me but they wouldn’t let me,” Donikian recalls.

Ironically, his surname had been considered fine in regional radio in
Queensland. But once he hit the big time in Sydney, he was told he had
to make himself fit in to a world of broadcasting that didn’t have
room for presenters who broke the white Anglo mould.

“You’ve got a job tomorrow,” a prospective boss told him. “But I can’t
do Donikian. You can be George White, George Green, any colour George
except Donikian.”.

“So I said, ‘OK, what you’re saying is, I’m too ethnic. How about I
take one letter off my name and make it Donikan?’. And he said, ‘Yeah,
good. You’ve got the job’.”

Weeks later, Donikian was invited to be host of a St Patrick’s Day event.

“The minute I walked in they said, ‘You’re not Irish’. I said, ‘To be
sure, to be sure’. I became an honorary Irishman for the next eight
years.”

Four decades on, Donikian wonders how much has changed. In a recent
column, Radio Waves noted the glaring gender imbalance among on-air
presenters; just as glaring, as Donikian points out, is the industry’s
reluctance to accept broadcasters who don’t fit the ancient and
preferred profile of white Anglo male.

“The most conservative things on the planet are television programmers
and radio programmers,” he says.

In the 1970s, Donikian was an up-and-comer in the radio industry.

“It was ‘the jocks’ – and it was too hard to put the jocks on
jockettes. It was out of America, it was the programming of the west
coast. Somehow you couldn’t have a woman’s voice coming out and saying
it with the same resonance.”

That was, and largely remains, an unbroken tradition. “We’ve never even tried.”

Radio listeners have been long conditioned to expect and accept names
and accents – and genders – that don’t challenge the status quo. When
the ABC launched its youth broadcaster Double J in the 1970s, one of
its standard bearers was one Bill Drake – whose real name, Holger
Brockman, was considered too “ethnic”. In Melbourne, the famous voice
of music radio, Lee Simons, had similarly abbreviated a name that
didn’t fit the accepted mix.

“What I didn’t realise until I got into the business is that there
were a whole lot of multicultural boys and girls – well, no girls –
just boys,” Donikian says. “All they did, as I had to do, we had to
change our names. It’s like a bit of Hollywood. They didn’t want it to
be too ethnic. And Australian radio has remained white Anglo-Saxon
Protestant for a lifetime. And male.”

Remarkably, little has changed, he says. Regarding women on air, he
notes: “Have a look at SBS radio and that will tell you something. We
don’t have a fairer mix. The diversity component on radio is
extraordinary. It’s still way too narrow.”

Donikian was a pioneer in changing our perceptions and expectations.
After years as the innocuous ‘Donikan’ on Sydney radio, he was then
tapped to front the launch of SBS television in 1980. The station went
out on the UHF band – “ultra hard to find. They gave us the bottom of
the ABC tower instead of the top of the tower. They weren’t into
sharing, it was about telling us what our place was.”

Broadcasting largely remains an outpost of an old Australia, Donikian
says, with our cultural and gender diversity at best an after-thought
in programming decisions. It’s instructive that among the high points
of his public fame were when he was satirised via Steve Vizard’s
comedic impressions on the sketch show Fast Forward.

“I hated it,” Donikian says. “Vizard did it too well. The attempted
over-pronunciation was too raw for me. People didn’t realise the
struggle and the energy that we spent to get that presentation down
pat. We had to come out of English, pronounce the name in the correct
manner, and then come back into English. And although they said, ‘You
did it seamlessly’, it was a departure – and a very different style of
presentation to anything that had been seen in Australia. I can
remember getting a lot of flack – people would think, ‘George is
making those affectations on purpose’. It was never anything on
purpose, we were trying to be as international as possible.”

Today, three years after ending his last mainstream commercial venture
as a newsreader for Channel Ten, Donikian has branched out as a
speechmaker, media trainer, mentor and public voice for the diverse
community for which he has been a standard bearer. He looks at the
modern media and wonders that so little progress has been made. “I
hate this blokeyness – everything’s Russy, Kenny, Billy, Johnny – I
despair. It’s like everything we tried to do is anathema.”

Back in the 1970s, he had to ask his father what do about not having a
profile that met the industry’s expectations. “I said to my father,
‘What do I do?’ He said, ‘Change your name. You can always change it
back’.”

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/radio-fixated-on-white-male-presenters-says-george-donikian-20140729-zxp9x.html

Unknown persons vandalize Surb Khach Chapel in Ijevan

Haykakan Zhamanak: Unknown persons vandalize Surb Khach Chapel in Ijevan

Friday, August 01, 2014

‘Haykakan Zhamanak’ writes that unknown persons committed an act of
vandalism in Surb Khach Chapel in Ijevan. They broke and burned the
church door and erased the words “Surb Khach” and the name of one of
the sponsors that financed the chapel from the records about repair
work done in the chapel.

“The reason is still unknown, but obviously it was not an act of
hooliganism. Surb Khach Chapel is two kilometers from the city and the
road to it is difficult to traverse. In other words, it was a
premeditated crime, rather than ordinary hooliganism, while the person
who committed it has some problems with the church or the sponsor who
financed the chapel’s reconstruction,” the daily says.

30.07.2014, 11:48
Aysor.am

From: Baghdasarian

ANKARA: The Lemkin Hole in the Swiss Case

Daily Sabah, Turkey
July 31 2014

THE LEMKIN HOLE IN THE SWISS CASE

“When Raphael Lemkin coined the word genocide in 1944 he cited the
annihilation of Armenians as a seminal example of genocide.” This is
an entirely false statement as Lemkin did not mention Armenians even
once

Tal Buenos

One name is found at the center of the Swiss case for a review of
Perinçek v. Switzerland in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of
Human Rights (ECHR): Raphael Lemkin. Lemkin is at the heart of the
Swiss claim that the ECHR decision in December 2013 creates artificial
distinctions, specifically between the Holocaust and the Armenian
tragedy. The distinction between the two sets of events is relevant
because the Swiss government is seeking to justify the decision of its
Federal Court by pointing out that if Holocaust denial is a crime,
then so should there be a reconsideration of the ECHR’s ruling against
the Swiss decision that DoÄ?u Perinçek was guilty of a crime for
rejecting the term genocide as descriptive of the Armenian tragedy.

Through reference to Lemkin – or, more accurately, the popularized
unscholarly narrative on the man – the government of Switzerland is
hoping to establish in the ECHR’s Grand Chamber, for the appeasement
of Armenian pressure and to the delight of anti-Turkish institutions
in the West, that one man’s application of the term genocide somehow
blurs the recognizable differences between the Holocaust and the
Ottoman reaction to Armenian rebellion in World War I.

According to the Swiss government, “The present case is the first case
which concerns the massacres and deportations¦ that Raphael Lemkin had
in mind when he coined the term genocide.” Furthermore, it notes as
significant that “four of the seven judges of the Chamber stressed
that Raphael Lemkin had precisely in mind the massacres and
deportations of 1915 when he coined the term genocide,” as if to
suggest that the narrative on Lemkin somehow makes up for there having
been no recognition of genocide by an international court in the
Armenian case.

The following questions beg to be asked: How is it that European
judges and officials express themselves so confidently about what
Lemkin had in his mind in 1944? How much difference would it make to
learn the actual facts about Lemkin’s life-story?

Although he came to fame as an American and died an American, Lemkin
is commonly described by the narrators of the genocide story as a
Polish Jew, which gives his character a sense of internationality and
dissociation from greatpower interests. According to some secondary
sources he was born in 1900 and according to others in 1901. His birth
town of Biazvodna in the vicinity of Vawkavysk was a territory of
Imperial Russia that went under German occupation during World War I.
Meaning, in addition to not being an Ottoman historian at any point in
his life, as World War I broke out in 1914, Lemkin was merely a
teenager in a rural area in today’s Belarus and likely received
distorted information on Armenians, Turks, and the war, through
channels of Russian propaganda filled with hatred of Turks.
Nevertheless, due to existing political influences, there are in the
West, textbooks in which young Lemkin’s impressions of World War I and
Armenian suffering have the capacity to overshadow academic analysis
of the complex political developments that explain the nature of the
Turkish-Armenian conflict.

The spotlight on an image of one individual, Lemkin, is designed to
give the appearance that the term genocide and its use were the
authentic hand-made creation of a morally committed Jew, thereby
leaving in darkness any discussion on the political origin and
utilization of the term, and in particular the political advantages
gained by establishing an artificial connection between Armenian and
Jewish suffering.

While there are thousands of references to how genocide was “coined”
by Lemkin in a book that he published in 1944, “Axis Rule in Occupied
Europe,” the actual big-name publisher of the book is typically either
omitted or downplayed: the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Who was Andrew Carnegie? For a time, he was the richest man in the
world. He made his wealth thanks to the booming steel industry, and
during a long period of retirement between the 1880s and World War I
he invested a huge amount of money in trust funds that were aimed at
changing global politics through a number of organizations. Being a
Scottishborn American – and a close friend of Britain’s most prominent
politician, William Gladstone, and main organizer of the Armenian
rebellion, James Bryce – he endeavored to use his money to establish
an Anglo-American control of the international economy by employing
“peace” as a mechanism to halt any other power’s growing ambitions.

In 1898, Carnegie wrote that the Anglo-American nation “would dominate
the world and banish from the earth its greatest stain – the murder of
men by men ¦ Such a giant among pigmies as the British-American Union
would never need to exert its power, but only to intimate its wishes
and decisions.” To him, this was Britain’s only chance to maintain a
status quo that is favorable to its imperial success: “The only course
for Britain seems to be reunion with her giant child, or sure decline
to a secondary place¦”

It was in Carnegie’s mind, surely not Lemkin’s, where the blueprint
for laws of international peace were first drawn, and it was meant to
extend imperial dominance; it was Carnegie’s fortune that built the
Peace Palace “so nations shall appeal to the Court at the Hague.”

Who set up, and was the first to lead, the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace in 1910? Unites States Senator, Elihu Root, a
former secretary of war and secretary of state, whose idea it was that
Carnegie create trusts for political and educational organizations,
which would have an unprecedented influence on international politics.
When “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe” came out under Lemkin’s name, the
head of the endowment’s International Law Division was George A.

Finch, who started off as a State Department employee. In the book,
Lemkin thanks Eleanor Lansing Dulles, a career State Department woman,
who at the time served as an economic officer in the Division of
Postwar Planning, and whose brothers were Allen Dulles, director of
the Central Intelligence Agency from 1953 to 1961, and John Foster
Dulles, the chairman of the board for the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace before serving as secretary of state under Dwight
Eisenhower. Another person thanked by Lemkin is Florence J. Harriman,
who served as the U.S. ambassador to Norway, and moved to Sweden
following the German invasion in 1940. She may have been the liaison
who facilitated Lemkin’s move from Stockholm to America in 1941.

Robert R. Wilson, an advisor to the State Department, was also thanked
by Lemkin in the book. Wilson was a recipient of the Carnegie
fellowship in international law until earning his Ph.D. at Harvard
University. When Lemkin first arrived in the U.S., he was offered a
position at Duke University where Wilson was the chair of the
department of political science. Already in 1939, five years before
“Axis Rule,” Wilson wrote in detail on the same topic of post-war
reclamation in consideration of Germany’s foul wartime conduct in
Carnegie and Root’s American Journal of International Law, stating
that: “The taking of drastic measures against individuals as a matter
of policy in certain countries, whether for reasons of racial origin
or other motives, raises a new questions of the possible significance
of these developments from the standpoint of international law.”

Lemkin’s book simply echoed the writings of this distinguished
government-affiliated professor who guided him into full-time
employment by the U.S. government in 1942.

Are we to believe that, despite this overwhelming association with
professional policy-makers in the foreign affairs of the U.S.
government, the book
“Axis Rule” and the term genocide are in fact Lemkin’s? Any reasonable
person who has ever bothered to read through the book would be of the
opinion that this is the work of several native speakers of English,
and not the work of one foreigner who did not live in an
Englishspeaking country until his 40s. Oddly, even an article written
in perfect English under Lemkin’s name in 1942, a mere year after his
emigration to the U.S., – “The Treatment of Young Offenders in
Continental Europe,” in Law and Contemporary Problems – does not
credit anyone for translating, proof-reading, or editing the work. It
seems that Lemkin’s real value lied in his image as a Polish Jew, for
such a figurehead must have added much credibility to the
Anglo-American campaign to establish international law according to
Carnegie’s vision.

Lemkin began his government work as a chief consultant on the U.S.
Board of Economic Warfare and Foreign Economic Administration before
transitioning into being an eminent government lawyer who held offices
in the Pentagon and the War Department. For this he received an annual
salary, which today would near six figures in U.S. dollars. After
parting ways with the U.S. government in 1947, he took a position at
Yale in 1948 and helped pass the United Nations Convention for the
Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

In the 1950s, during a time of personal desperation marked by an
unpublished autobiography, Lemkin became isolated from the government
in his efforts to apply “genocide” around the world – such as calling
the potato famine in Ireland a genocide – and reportedly became
obsessed with its promotion as it became attached to his own name and
reputation. It was during this time that he received interest and
support from Christian groups. In return, he began to condemn as
genocide the past treatment of Christian Armenians by the Ottoman
state and Christian Koreans by Japan in order to find favor with
nongovernment Christian lobbies of missionary agendas and enhance his
legacy in this manner. In this state of mind, he claimed that he
always had the Armenians in mind.

Yair Auron of the Open University in Tel Aviv is often quoted for
stating that “When Raphael Lemkin coined the word genocide in 1944 he
cited the annihilation of Armenians as a seminal example of genocide.”
This is not even a half-truth, but an entirely false statement: The
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace publication under Lemkin’s
name in 1944 did not mention Armenians even once. If the honorable
European judges in the Grand Chamber elect to structure their decision
on the fables of promoters of genocide scholarship such as Auron – who
suddenly began to write profusely on the Armenian issue in the 1990s,
15 years after the completion of his doctoral dissertation on a
completely different topic of Jewish youths in France – then there
should be a much publicized questioning of their intellectual
integrity.

The Lemkin hole in the Swiss case is an important reflector of an
overall imprudent statement by the Swiss government that the
distinction between the Holocaust and the Armenian tragedy is
“questionable.” The suffering of many Armenian communities is known as
tragic because of the sense of inevitability brought about by the
persistent attempts of the Entente and the irresponsible nationalist
leaders of the Armenian people to utterly destroy the Ottoman state.
For the European judges at the ECHR’s Grand Chamber to say that there
is no distinction between the German Jewish leaders during the
Holocaust and the Ottoman Armenian revolutionaries in World War I
would be inaccurate, insensitive, and, quite frankly, unnecessary.

The story of genocide is not Lemkin’s own story, and it must find
itself a new symbol, which shall no longer project inaccuracies that
conceal its real roots in powerful political minds. Only then, may the
context of the Armenian pressure in the U.S. and Europe be revealed.

* University of Utah

From: Baghdasarian

http://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/2014/08/01/the-lemkin-hole-in-the-swiss-case