Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

MAUVAIS OEUFS : LE SERVICE DE L’ETAT DIT QUE LES PRODUITS IMPORTES SONT a dit Danielian, ajoutant que selon
les normes armeniennes les oeufs sont bons a etre utilises pendant
25 jours a compter du jour de la production, tandis que les oeufs
imortees avaient des dates de 60 jours d’expiration en conformite
avec les normes du pays qui les avait exporte.

Danielyan a dit que 15 entreprises importent des oeufs vers l’Armenie
en provenance d’Ukraine, de la Turquie et de l’Iran. Pendant les deux
premiers mois de cette annee, plus de 1,6 millions d’oeufs ont ete
importes. En 2013, l’Armenie a produit 615,2 millions et en a importe
environ 18 millions d’oeufs.

Par Gohar Abrahamyan

ArmeniaNow

lundi 24 fevrier 2014, Stephane (c)armenews.com

From: Baghdasarian

EN 1964, AVEC 20 DOLLARS ET 20 KG, LES GRECS DE TURQUIE SONT CHASSES EN 12HEURES

Turquie

La Turquie commemore cette annee un fait meconnu, voire inconnu
du public : l’expulsion des Grecs d’Istanbul en 1964, sur fond
d’affrontement entre Ankara et Athènes autour de Chypre.

Par Samin Akgonul *

Une population manque a Istanbul la cosmopolite. Celle des Grecs de
Constantinople, acteurs pendant des siècles d’une histoire aussi
brillante que dramatique. Pourtant leur depart ne date pas de la
chute de l’empire byzantin. Il est bien plus recent. Le 14 mars 1964,
le gouvernement d’Ankara decide d’expulser douze mille habitants
d’Istanbul de citoyennete grecque. Ces derniers sont sommes de quitter
la ville en douze heures, autorises a emporter vingt dollars et vingt
kilos d’affaires personnelles. Ils seront suivis par plus de trente
mille Grecs, citoyens turcs pour leur part : epoux et epouses, enfants,
associes, amis, compagnons et compagnes. Au total, en quelques mois,
quarante-cinq mille Grecs quitteront a jamais leur ville, amers,
surpris, accuses d’etre Grecs en Turquie, et Turcs en Grèce…Une
poignee d’entre eux a echappe a l’evacuation forcee.

Aujourd’hui les Grecs d’Istanbul, la plus vieille communaute de la
ville, ne sont plus que quelques milliers1.

Ces Grecs se disent > et sont appeles ainsi par des Turcs
car ils sont consideres comme les descendants de l’Empire romain
d’Orient, que nous appelons aujourd’hui l’Empire byzantin. C’est ainsi
que le vainqueur des chretiens voyait les choses. Mehmet II dit le > se tenait pour le successeur des empereurs romains. En
1453, au lendemain de la chute de Constantinople – ou de la conquete
d’Istanbul, selon le côte historiographique où l’on se place – il
maintient donc la population autochtone grecque orthodoxe de la ville.

Pendant près d’un demi-millenaire, les Grecs de l’empire ottoman
ont ensuite vecu au sein d’un système de nations confessionnelles
(millet), aux côtes des musulmans et des Armeniens. Sans idealiser
cette periode de tensions durant laquelle la hierarchie entre les
musulmans et les non musulmans etait bien reelle, on peut tout de
meme dire que par comparaison avec d’autres regions du monde, le
système a assure une paix societale relative.

UNE EPURATION NATIONALISTE

Les choses s’enveniment avec l’invention de la >. Le long
XIXe siècle est celui des guerres, des massacres et des expulsions. Le
nationalisme turc, tardif par rapport aux autres, est reactionnaire,
radical, destructeur parfois. Ainsi, les nations non musulmanes de
l’empire sont epurees dans une tentative sans fin d’homogeneisation
de la population. Trois dates sont marquantes :

1915, date symbolique de l’extermination des Armeniens, dont le
centenaire sera l’annee prochaine ;

1923, date de l’echange force de populations entre la Grèce et la
Turquie dont le pays vient de commemorer le 90e anniversaire avec de
nombreuses manifestations ;

1964, dont nous marquons cette annee le 50e anniversaire.

Lire la suite, voir lien plus bas

lundi 24 fevrier 2014, Jean Eckian (c)armenews.com

From: Baghdasarian

ARSEN AVAKOV A LANCE UN MANDAT D’ARRET CONTRE IANOUKOVITCH

Ukraine

Le Ministre de l’interieur par interim, Arsen Avakov, a annonce ce
matin sur son profil Facebook, avoir lance un Mandat d’arret contre
l’ex-president ukrainien Viktor Ianoukovitch, pour > sur des civils. Sont egalement concernes par la decision plusieurs
fonctionnaires.

A cette heure, Ianoukovitch demeure introuvable.

lundi 24 fevrier 2014, Jean Eckian (c)armenews.com

From: Baghdasarian

COMMUNAUTE-VALENCE (DRÔME)
Conférence sur > présenté à Valence
par Jean Krikorian – Photos

Vendredi 21 février à l’invitation de l’association des Anciens
Combattants Français d’Origine Arménienne-Drôme Ardèche (ACFOA), était
organisée à la Maison de la Vie associative de Valence, une soirée
consacrée aux > présentée par Jean
Krikorian, président d’honneur de la MCA de la Loire. Une soirée
dédiée au 70e anniversaire de l’exécution du Groupe Manouchian, Dans
le public on notait la présence de nombreuses personnalités dont le
sculpteur Toros, et Mireille Monier-Lovie, présidente de l’Association
Nationale des Anciens Combattants et Amis de la Résistance de la Drôme
(ANACR-26). Georges Erétzian président de l’ACFOA-Drôme Ardèche
présenta le thème de la soirée et remercia le public et les
personnalités pour leur présence avant de donner la parole au
conférencier.

Jean Krikorian présenta tout d’abord un court film documentaire sur le
Groupe Manouchian et l’Affiche Rouge puis il retraça avec force
détails les actions du Groupe Missak Manouchian ainsi que les
conditions de leur arrestation. Jean Krikorian fit également une large
place à l’engagement de ces étrangers engagés dans les FTP-MOI,
Espagnols, Italiens, Hongrois, Juifs Polonais, Arméniens ou Roumains.
Il donna de très nombreuses informations sur d’autres actes de
résistance arménienne engagée auprès des troupes françaises à Verdun
en 1916-1918 ainsi qu’en Palestine avec la légion arménienne d’Orient.
Jean Krikorian illustra ces résistances avec quelques souvenirs de son
père, soldat volontaire de l’armée du général arménien Antranik. Le
jeune Hampartsoum lut la lettre émouvante de Missak Manouchian à son
épouse Mélinée à la veille de son exécution au mont Valérien. Le
sculpteur Toros a fait part quant à lui de son projet d’une oeuvre
dédiée à Missak Manouchian qui devrait être inaugurée à Valence l’an
prochain.

Lors du débat qui suivit cette conférence, Jean Krikorian répondit aux
très nombreuses questions du public notamment sur les conditions de
l’arrestation des membres du Groupe Manouchian. La soirée s’est
terminée par une collation offerte par l’ACFOA-Drôme Ardèche.

Krikor Amirzayan texte et reportage-photo à Valence (Drôme)

Mireille Monier-Lovie (Présidente ANACR-26) et son époux
Georges Erétzian (président de l’ACOFA-Drôme Ardèche)
Georges Erétzian présente la soirée
Georges Erétzian
Le public pour la soirée “Les étrangers dans la Résistance”
Le public à l’écoute de Jean Krikorian
Le public écoute Jean Krikorian sur le Groupe Manouchian
Jean Krikorian en conférence sur le Groupe Manouchian
Jean Krikorian grand connaisseur de la mémoire du Groupe Missak Manouchian
Georges Erétzian et Jean Krikorian
Georges Erétzian et Jean Krikorian
Le public à l’écoute de Jean Krikorian
Jean Krikorian captive le public sur l’histoire du Groupe Manouchian
Jean Krikorian explique l’histoire des étrangers dans la Résistance
Le jeune Hampartsoum et Jean Krikorian
L’artiste Toros informe de son projet d’une sculpture sur Missak Manouchian
Le sculpteur Toros va honorer la mémoire de Missak Manouchian par une
nouvelle création à Valence

dimanche 23 février 2014,
Krikor Amirzayan (c)armenews.com
– 521

From: Baghdasarian

Economic Blockades and International Law: The Case of Armenia

By Armen Sahakyan // February 20, 2014

An adequate Armenian policy towards Turkey has spurred much debate,
especially since the signing of the 2009 Armenia-Turkey protocols in
Zurich. The opening of the border was considered one of the
cornerstones of the protocols; thus, it is important to understand why
the de-facto border was closed in the first place, and what
alternatives to the protocols the Republic of Armenia has in mind.

The Armenia-Turkey border

This article presents the legal and historical background of the
unilateral economic blockades imposed on Armenia by Turkey and
Azerbaijan, and proposes certain measures that Yerevan may take to
protect its national interests. This article will not, however, cover
the topic of the de-jure borders of Armenia with its neighbors.

Interestingly, Turkey was one of the first states to recognize the
independence of the Republic of Armenia (the legal heir of the
Armenian Democratic Republic of 1918) on Dec. 24, 1991, following the
collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1993, due to the ongoing war between
the Artsakh Republic and the Republic of Azerbaijan, Turkey
unilaterally closed its land and air borders with Armenia, although
the airspace was later re-opened in 1995. Despite the closed border,
some indirect trade still takes place between the two states, mostly
through Georgia. However, transit entails additional costs and,
obviously, an under-realization of the trade potential. The closed
borders additionally block Armenia’s guaranteed access to the sea,
which would enable more efficient trade opportunities. This has
certainly translated negatively on Armenia’s ability to take part in
international economic cooperation and to better integrate with
multilateral trading blocs. The primary imported goods from Turkey to
Armenia are food products, textile, chemical industries, and household
goods. Armenia, on its part, exports raw and processed leather,
jewelry, and various metal products to Turkey. To this day, Turkey and
Azerbaijan have refused to establish diplomatic relations with
Armenia. Additionally, Azerbaijan closed its border with Armenia and
Artsakh during the Soviet era.

An economic blockade is a type of unilateral coercive measure. It is
widely acknowledged that the term “unilateral coercive measure” is
difficult to define. Nevertheless, these measures often refer to
economic steps taken by one state to compel a change in the policy of
another. The most widely used forms of economic pressure are trade
sanctions in the form of embargoes and/or boycotts, and the
interruption of financial and investment flows between sender and
target countries. While embargoes are often understood as being trade
sanctions aimed at preventing exports to a target country, boycotts
are measures seeking to refuse imports from a target country.
Frequently, however, the combination of import and export restrictions
is referred to as a trade embargo.

Turkey and Azerbaijan have effectively been exercising an illegal
unilateral economic blockade against Armenia, which has hurt the
latter economically. The UN Security Council, the sole body to legally
authorize sanctions against states, has not done so against Armenia.

On Dec. 1, 2011 the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly
approved the text of “Unilateral economic measures as a means of
political and economic coercion against developing countries” by a
recorded vote of 118 in favor, 2 against (Israel, United States), and
49 abstentions. The General Assembly called on the international
community to condemn and reject the imposition of such measures, while
requesting that the Secretary General continue to monitor their
imposition and to study their impact on countries and on development.

Earlier in October 2002, the General Assembly had adopted a resolution
on unilateral coercive economic measures that called on states to not
recognize or apply such measures imposed by any state across
territorial boundaries, as they are contrary to recognized principles
of international law. Armenia said that by voting in favor of the
resolution, it condemned the continuing practice of imposing such
measures, particularly in the South Caucasus region. Such measures
contravene international law and the principles of the UN Charter, and
their practice is detrimental to developing countries, as well as
those with economies in transition.

Armenia is not yet recognized by the UN as a victim state of
unilateral coercive measures. Its first objective should be to make
sure that the economic blockades by Turkey and Azerbaijan are
categorized as a unilateral coercive measure. Armenia has previously
stated at the UN that the negative consequences of sanctions have been
felt beyond the countries directly affected, as they have also had
adverse implications for the free flow of international trade and the
effectiveness of international economic cooperation. Additionally,
Armenia said that it does not agree with the imposition of unilateral
economic measures as instruments of political and economic coercion
against developing countries.

The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly
Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter
of the United Nations was adopted by the General Assembly on Oct. 24,
1970. The maintenance of international peace and security and the
development of friendly relations and co-operation between nations are
among the fundamental purposes of the UN. According to the Charter,
the people represented by the UN are determined to practice tolerance
and live together in peace as good neighbors.

Turkey and Azerbaijan are in clear violation of the Principle of Good
Neighborliness, as well as all of the General Assembly resolutions
condemning unilateral coercive measures. Armenia, as a subject of
international law, has to take actions to protect its rights and
ensure that Turkey and Azerbaijan adhere to the accepted international
norms and principles. Even though the General Assembly resolutions are
not obligatory, they do create the guidelines and parameters for
moving forward. Armenia must use this card to deal with the dual
blockade as well as Azerbaijan’s accusations that Armenia is in
violation of Security Council resolutions.

Treaty law provides countries and individuals the right to life, the
right to an adequate standard of living (including food, clothing,
housing and medical care), the right to freedom from hunger, and the
right to health. By blockading Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan have
violated these rights. The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights concluded that human rights must be taken fully into account
when designing an appropriate sanctions regime; that effective
monitoring should be undertaken throughout the period that sanctions
are in force; and that the external entity imposing the sanctions has
an obligation to take steps, individually and through international
assistance and cooperation, in order to respond to any
disproportionate suffering experienced by vulnerable groups within the
targeted country. None of the requirements of this Committee have been
followed by either Azerbaijan or Turkey.

Turkey and Azerbaijan are also in violation of customary international
law and general principles. Within the United Nations more broadly,
Member States have expressed their view that unilateral coercive
measures of an economic character may constitute unlawful
interferences. The 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of
Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of
Their Independence and Sovereignty, the 1970 Declaration on Friendly
Relations, and the 1981 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of
Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States–with a
particular emphasis on economic measures, among others–establish the
basis for the customary law.

In order to be regarded as intervention, the measures must be aimed at
influencing the sovereign will of another state in undue fashion.
Thus, where unilateral coercive measures intend to induce compliance
with international legal obligations, such as non-use of force or
human rights, they are less likely to infringe on the principle than
when they are directed against the legitimate sovereign political
decision-making of a state. The Turkish-Azerbaijani blockade in this
case is clearly an intervention.

According to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, the
Security Council may impose forcible or non-forcible measures in
situations that constitute at least a threat to international peace
and security. This has not been done with regards to Armenia.

Some states view unilateral coercive measures as infringing on the
right to self-determination, basing their claim on Articles 1,
Paragraph 2, and 55 of the Charter of the United Nations. Finally,
these states note that unilateral coercive measures can also have the
impact of the deprivation of one’s means of subsistence, and can
constitute an obstacle to the realization of the right to development.
Armenia can and should also use these factors in its argumentation.

Armenia needs to be more aggressive in the international arena in
presenting its predicament. The border is not simply closed, but has
been closed in violation of the accepted international norms and
international documents. Once the brief but aggressive phase of
awareness-building bears some positive results, and once the
government of Armenia finds the right time, it needs to take the next
step of introducing various resolutions within all possible
international organizations (especially the OSCE) and pressure Turkey
to abide by international rules and norms. It would be helpful to
study the economic blockade resolutions regarding Cuba that pass in
the General Assembly every year. Some other strategies may prove to be
useful for Armenia as well.

At the same time, it is important to keep the Artsakh issue on the
margins. At the beginning, the pursuit should only be geared towards
the Turkish blockade, and not the Azerbaijani one. There is a high
risk of also discussing the Artsakh conflict in the UN, should Armenia
involve Azerbaijan in its demands. It would be less risky to first
pressure Turkey and then, based on the experience, decide on the
course of action regarding Azerbaijan’s blockade.

It is clear that Armenia, as a member of the international community,
has certain rights and privileges provided by international law, and
should thus use all possible instruments in its toolbox to ensure that
its national interests are served well. International law by itself is
unlikely to produce any tangible results for Armenia, but it should be
incorporated into the Republic of Armenia’s wider strategy and foreign
policy.

From: Baghdasarian

MOROCCO BACKS BAKU`S STANCE ON NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
Feb 21 2014

21 February 2014, 16:23 (GMT+04:00)

Morocco has always supported Azerbaijan’s fair position on the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,” said Ali Kabiri, Chairman of the
Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Islamic Affairs and
Moroccans Residing Abroad.

“We hope that this conflict will be resolved in compliance with the
principle of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan,” he has told
journalists in Baku, AzerTag state news agency reported.

Kabiri highlighted the goal of his Azerbaijan visit, saying “we are
here to discuss ways of strengthening friendly and brotherly ties
with Azerbaijan”.

He said the reciprocal opening of embassies in 2006 and 2009 greatly
contributed to the expansion of economic and political relations
between the two countries.

Kabiri pointed to legal framework of the bilateral cooperation, saying
“a number of important documents on science and education have been
signed so far”.

He said Azerbaijan and Morocco were planning to ink some new deals
in the future.

From: Baghdasarian

A LOOK IN THE REAR-VIEW MIRROR: WORLD WAR I ROOT OF THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT

Your Middle East
Feb 21 2014

Philippe Alfroy, AFP

Middle East history A century on, World War I casts a haunting shadow
far from the trenches of western Europe, having spawned two crises
that still strain international relations: the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict and the Armenian genocide.

When Ottoman Sultan Mehmed V declared “holy war” on Britain, France
and Russia on November 24, 1914, his five-century-old empire was
already in decline and had lost most of its European territory.

Convinced that Germany, an ally, was destined for a speedy victory,
the empire’s governing “Young Turks” movement saw the war as a chance
to consolidate its grip on power, block the economic rise of London
and Paris, and reclaim central Asia.

The Ottoman army inflicted a brutal defeat on British and French
forces on the strategic Gallipoli peninsula during the Dardanelles
campaign in 1915, but its war turned into a nightmare on the eastern
front against Russia.

Tens of thousands of soldiers died in battles that drew in Armenian
fighters who fought alongside Russian troops in a bid to cast off
Ottoman rule.

An inhuman act

Defeated by Russia in Armenia and the Caucasus, the Ottomans responded
by attacking the Armenian minority in their midst.

“There are two alternatives: either the Armenians will liquidate
the Turks, or the Turks will liquidate them,” an Ottoman official,
Mehmed Resid, wrote in his memoirs.

“Faced with the need to choose, I did not hesitate long. Before they
do away with us, we will get rid of them.”

The arrest and massacre of 2,000 Armenian leaders in Istanbul on April
24, 1915 began what is described as the first genocide of the 20th
century — although modern-day Turkey categorically refutes the term.

In less than a year, hundreds of thousands were forcibly displaced,
their possessions seized and many of them killed.

A century on, the mass killings continue to fuel a bitter controversy,
regularly upsetting relations between Turkey and the West.

Armenians, backed by many historians and a growing number of foreign
parliaments, say up to 1.5 million of their kin were systematically
killed in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire.

Turkey admits large scale massacres took place, but says they were
perpetrated in self-defence against the Russian threat. Overall it
says 500,000 died in fighting and of starvation.

The Armenian academic Rouben Safrastian rejects the Turkish arguments.

“Massacres of Armenians took place well before World War I,”, he
argues. “The war was simply a good excuse to carry out a criminal
plan.”

“For us the question is just as painful as it was 100 years ago,”
said the vice-president of the Armenian national assembly, Eduard
Sharmazanov. “Turkey needs to end its policy of denial and apologise
to the Armenian people.”

There have been gradual signs of change in Turkey, with Foreign
Minister Ahmet Davutoglu last year calling the events of 1915-16 a
“mistake” and an “inhuman act” during a trip to the Armenian capital,
Yerevan.

“In recent years there have been commemorations in Turkey, university
conferences. It’s a small revolution,” said Turkish analyst Burcu
Gultekin Punsmann.

“A pretty deep process of revision is underway in Turkish society,
even if it is not yet obvious at the political level.”

Conflict in the Middle East

World War I also redrew the map of the entire Middle East, sowing
the seeds of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In 1916, Ottoman forces, led by German generals, quickly gained the
upper hand over British troops in Palestine and Mesopotamia, an area
that covers modern-day Iraq, Kuwait and parts of Syria.

But British forces proved highly adept at mobile warfare in the desert,
one of the few places where fighting on horseback was still possible.

They were assisted by the actions of T.E. Lawrence, the fabled British
archaeologist who rallied Arab nationalists in revolt against Turkish
rule and sultans.

His hit-and-run attacks on Turkish supply lines were a marginal
part of the campaign, but the legend of “Lawrence of Arabia” had
dramatic propaganda value, and his writings on insurgency tactics
remain highly influential.

By 1917, the British had turned the tide of the campaign, taking
Baghdad and Jerusalem. By the following year, Allied forces had
occupied Damascus and Beirut and had effective control over the
entire region.

The Arabs that supported them had bought into promises from Britain
and France that they would win independence after the war, but they
were to be bitterly disappointed.

Behind the scenes, Britain and France had already carved up the
region between themselves under the Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916:
Libya and Syria to France; Jordan, Palestine and Iraq to the British.

Adding to the confusion, and cutting across their agreements with both
the French and the Arabs, the British had also announced the infamous
Balfour Doctrine in 1917, in which foreign secretary Arthur Balfour had
promised a homeland for Jewish people in Palestine. The doctrine formed
the basis for the creation of the Israeli state three decades later,
and a conflict that continues to tear apart the region to this day.

The armistice signed at Mudros in Greece on October 30, 1918, marked
the final dissolution and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. Five
centuries of imperial rule was at an end.

But the fighting was not over for Turkey, which spent another four
years in a war of reconquest to regain lost lands in Anatolia,
particularly against the Greeks. It was these battles that allowed
Mustafa Kemal, who would later become Ataturk, to lay the foundations
of modern-day Turkey.

From: Baghdasarian

February 21, 2014
Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America
H.E. Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate
6252 Honolulu Avenue
La Crescenta, CA 91214
Tel: (818) 248-7737
Fax: (818) 248-7745
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:

REQUIEM FOR A.R.S. MEMBERS TO BE HELD
IN PRELACY CHURCHES

– REQUIEM FOR LT. GURGEN MARGARYAN AND SUMGAIT MASSACRES

By the ordinance of H.E. Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate,
and in coordination with the Armenian Relief Society Regional Executive, the
last Sunday of each February is designated ARS Remembrance Day, when requiem
is held in all Prelacy Churches for departed ARS members and benefactors
This year’s requiem service will be held on Sunday, February 23,
2014.
The Prelate will preside over Divine Liturgy and requiem, and will
deliver the sermon Holy Cross Cathedral in Montebello.
On this day, requiem will also be offered for the soul of Lt. Gurgen
Margaryan on the 10th anniversary of his murder, and for the victims of the
Sumgait, Baku, and Maragha massacres.
We urge our faithful parishioners to join us in paying tribute to
the memory of ARS servants, Lt. Gurgen Margaryan, and the victims of the
Sumgait, Baku, and Maragha Massacres.
By the ordinance of the Prelate, Rev. Fr. Boghos Tinkjian will
celebrate Divine Liturgy and deliver the sermon at the Colorado parish.

***

SPECIAL SERVICES TO BE HELD ON THE FEASTS OF GHEVONTIANTS AND VARTANANTS

On February 25 and February 27, the Armenian Church will observe two
important feasts, Ghevontiants and Vartanants, commemorating the sacrifices
of our beloved saints for our faith and our nation.
On Tuesday, February 25th, the Feast of Ghevontiants will be
observed at Forty Martyrs Church in Orange County with morning service, the
annual Ghevontiants clergy conference, and Divine Liturgy, presided over by
H.E. Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate, and with the participation
of clergy members.
The day begins at 11:00 a.m. with morning service. The clergy
conference will convene in the afternoon and conclude at 6:00 p.m. The day
will also include a visit to Ari Guiragos Minassian School where the Prelate
will convey his message to the students, who will present a Vartanants
program.
Divine Liturgy will be celebrated at 6:30 p.m., after which a
reception organized by the Board of Trustees will be held at Gugasian Hall.

On Thursday, February 27th, in celebration of the Feast of
Vartanants, morning services will be held at Prelacy Churches.
In the evening, Divine Liturgy will be celebrated at St. Sarkis
Church in Pasadena, presided over by the Prelate and with the participation
of clergy members. Rev. Fr. Boghos Tinkjian will celebrate Divine Liturgy
and deliver the sermon.
The service begins at 7:00 p.m. and will conclude with the singing
of special songs and hymns designated for this feast.

***

NAME DAY CELEBRATION OF ST. SARKIS CHURCH
OF PASADENA

Over the weekend of February 15, 2014, the Feast of St. Sarkis,
which is also the name day of St. Sarkis Church of Pasadena, was celebrated
with a number of services, culminating on Sunday, February 16, with
Episcopal Divine Liturgy celebrated by H.E. Archbishop Moushegh
Mardirossian, Prelate, and the blessing of madagh.
The name-day celebration began on Friday, February 14, with Parish
Pastor Rev. Fr. Boghos Baltayan’s blessing of the salt to be used for the
madagh, after which the madagh preparation began.
On Saturday evening, the eve of the feast was commemorated with an
evening service conducted by Fr. Boghos.
On Sunday morning Divine Liturgy began with the procession of the
Prelate into the church as the choir sang the “Hrashapar” hymn. His
Eminence was assisted at the altar by Rev. Fr. Boghos Baltayan and Rev. Fr.
Armen Melkonian, who is visiting our Prelacy.
Prior to delivering the sermon, the Prelate congratulated and
commended the church family on their name-day celebration and greeted the
faithful, among them church benefactors Mr. and Mrs. Sarkis and Suzan
Kitsinian and family members.
The message of the Prelate’s sermon was the words of St. Sarkis,
that “when you are reinforced in faith and by the Holy Spirit, no force can
overcome you, because triumph is for the good and the righteous, and
ultimate triumph and glory belong to God”.
His Eminence spoke of the life of St. Sarkis, his staunch faith and
martyrdom, and invited the faithful to become strengthened in their faith in
the example of St. Sarkis and to put aside our own self interests in our
service to Him. The Prelate also reminded the faithful how St. Sarkis, his
son Mardiros, and their fourteen companions endured untold torture with
illuminated spirits and unwavering faith. No matter the circumstances in
our lives, we must always look for the good and remain faithful servants of
our Lord Jesus Christ Who came to this earth to reveal that He is “the way,
the truth, and the life,” stated the Prelate and concluded his sermon with
the following prayer; “O Lord, during the course of our lives we are faced
with all kinds of challenges and tribulations, but we will never falter in
our faith because we trust in Your dominion, mercy, and righteousness, and
we beseech You, through the intercession of our beloved saint, to release us
from our afflictions and grant peace to our lives and to the world,
especially to our brothers and sisters in Syria. May Your peace be with
them, granting them patience in the struggles they endure.”
The blessing of madagh and requiem service followed, in which H.E.
Archbishop Souren Kataroyan, former Prelate of the Prelacy of Aleppo,
participated. Requiem prayers were offered for the souls of the first
parish pastor, Archpriest Fr. Sarkis Antreassian, Board of Trustees members,
Delegates, and church and community servants.
The services concluded with the Cilician and Pontifical anthems in
the church main entrance.
A lunch reception followed at “Andon Andonian” Hall presided over by
the Prelate and with the participation of Archbishop Souren Kataroyan,
priests, Executive Council Chair Mrs. Rima Boghossian, Board of Trustees
members, Delegates, and church benefactors, sponsors.
After the blessing of tables by the Prelate, remarks were delivered
by Board of Trustees Chairman Mr. Hagop Avedikian, Rev. Fr. Boghos Baltayan,
Hrag Kitsinian, youngest child of the Kitsinian family, Mr. Sarkis
Kitsinian, and Mrs. Rima Boghossian, all congratulating the community on
this joyous occasion.
The Prelate again congratulated and commended the parish community,
wishing them continued successes in their service. The celebration came to
a close with the Prelate’s benediction.

***

ARMENIAN LANGUAGE REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF
THE WESTERN PRELACY

Upon the recommendation of the Representatives Assembly and the
invitation of H.E. Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate, and the
Executive Council, last year a committee was launched within the Western
Prelacy to focus on the revitalization and preservation of the Armenian
language in the United States of America. The committee held its first
meeting on May 1, 2013.
During subsequent meetings, the committee concurred that the use of
the Armenian language, both oral and written, is in decline in Armenian
communities of the Western United States. Maintaining that language
vitality is essential to the sustainability of Armenian culture and identity
in a Diasporic context, the committee embarked on strategic planning
sessions to propose a plan for intervention and revitalization.
Accordingly, the committee began to evaluate the root causes of this
problem based on available research results and statistics, and to create a
plan of action with a clear vision, mission, and strategic goals for
spearheading a decentralized language revitalization program. Partnerships
with schools, churches, organizations, political parties, media and
interested individuals will be central to the program’s success.
The Prelate and Executive Council are pleased to announce that the
committee will continue its mission as a standing body under the auspices of
the Western Prelacy, as the “Armenian Language Revitalization Committee”.
The committee is comprised of the following members: Dr. Haroutiun
Armenian, Dr. Hagop Gulludjian, Mr. Sarkis Mahserejian, Mr. Jora
Manoucherian, Mr. Vazken Madenlian, Dr. Talar Chahinian-Mahroukian, Dr.
Vahram Shemmassian, Dr. Hasmig Baran, and Dr. Rubina Peroomian.
We are confident that this committee will expertly carry out this
endeavor and in collaboration with community organizations, educational
institutions, and media members will expand this undertaking to a
pan-Armenian cause.

***

GLENDALE ADVENTIST PRESIDENT KEVIN ROBERTS
VISITS THE PRELACY

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014, Glendale Adventist President Kevin
Roberts paid his first visit to the Prelacy where he was welcomed by H.E.
Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate, who was joined by Rev. Fr. Vazken
Atmajian.
The cordial visit offered the opportunity for the Prelate and Mr.
Roberts to discuss general community issues, the services offered by
Glendale Adventist, and long-time collaboration between the two
institutions.
Mr. Roberts expressed appreciation for the Prelate’s interest in the
hospital’s services, and conveyed thanks for the Prelacy’s care and support
towards the hospital, for the spiritual services provided by the Prelacy and
its church within the community, clergy visits to the hospital, and the
long-standing tradition of the annual grape-blessing.
The Prelate and guest also exchanged ideas to expand collaborative
efforts. At the conclusion of the visit the Prelate presented Mr. Roberts
guest with a memento.

From: Baghdasarian

Robert Fisk: Ukraine’s future is tied up with Syria’s – and Vladimir
Putin is crucial to both

ROBERT FISK

Friday 21 February 2014

No one in the Middle East will be studying Ukraine’s violent tragedy
with more fascination – and deeper concern – than President Bashar
al-Assad of Syria.

He won’t care a fig about Obama’s critics – who are already chastising
the US President for giving Vladimir Putin the green light to support
the Ukrainian President by flunking his threat to bomb Damascus last
year – nor will Assad care very much about the future political career
of Viktor Yanukovych, whom he happens to know well.

He will instead be dwelling upon the remarkable similarities between
Yanukovych’s besieged government and his own Syrian regime, which is
still battling an armed struggle against insurgents. The parallels are
by no means exact, as Assad’s enemies claim them to be when they
suggest that he and Yanukovych are “blood brothers”. But they are
close enough to persuade the Syrian President and his Talleyrand – the
Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem – to study the degree of support
Putin gives to his ally in Kiev.

Without Russian and Iranian support, Assad could scarcely have
survived the past three years of war in Syria. Nor could Yanukovych,
without Moscow’s “brotherly” friendship, have withstood opposition
forces – and the EU’s flirtation with Ukraine – as long as he has. The
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been using almost the same
words of irritation and anger towards the US over Ukraine as he did
towards America when it was threatening to bomb Syria. If Ukraine
constitutes Russia’s eastern defensive wall against Europe, Syria –
fighting against Islamist rebels every bit as ruthless as Putin has
faced in Chechnya – is part of Moscow’s southern flank.

LATEST:

UKRAINE PRESIDENT VIKTOR YANUKOVYCH DENIES RESIGNATION CLAIMS AS
SECURITY CHIEFS WITHDRAW FROM CONFLICT WITH PEOPLE

There are other, more intriguing comparisons. The initial Syrian
opposition to Assad – following revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt – was
peaceful, although armed men did occasionally appear even in the early
days of the revolt. Then military deserters formed an armed opposition
that was swiftly taken over by radicals more interested in replacing
Assad with a caliphate than the “free Syria” which the opposition
originally demanded. So, too, in Kiev: Yanukovych’s opponents found
themselves, after several weeks, uneasily linked to small, right-wing,
neo-Nazi groups who had – in the eyes of their enemies – more in
common with the Ukrainian fascists who helped the Germans in the
Second World War than with the Soviet resistance to Nazi occupation.

Just as Assad’s first opponents were idolised by the West – and its
media – as freedom fighters, so were the Ukrainian opposition regarded
as anti-regime rather than anti-constitutional by the same powers and
their newspapers. Once Syria’s unrest became weaponised on both sides,
the West and its Arab allies sent military equipment to Assad’s
enemies. There is no evidence that the West has done the same for
Yanukovych’s opponents, some of whom are now also armed, but be sure
it is only a matter of time before the Russians claim that they have.

There are differences, of course. Yanukovych was elected in a rather
more convincing poll than Assad. Ukraine is not ethnically divided:
Catholicism and Christian Orthodoxy outline the internal borders,
although the Catholic/Croat-Serb/Orthodox civil war in ex-Yugoslavia
does not suggest a happy outcome to Ukraine’s suffering. Syria’s war
has created areas of conflict in which Sunnis are largely fighting
Shia Alawites, Christians, Druze and others, along with middle-class
Sunnis and Sunni army officers who support the government.

There have, of course, long been contacts between Syria and the
Ukraine. Just before the revolution in Syria, Assad visited Kiev,
signed a free trade agreement and heard Yanukovych praise his country
as Ukraine’s “gateway to the Middle East”. There are closer ties: the
large number of Syrian students who have been attending Ukrainian
universities and the larger number of Ukrainian citizens born to
Syrian and Soviet parents before the collapse of Communism in eastern
Europe. The older Syrian generals also know Kiev well from their early
training in Soviet military schools.

But the real question for Syria is this: will Putin be able to support
Yanukovych if US and EU pressure continues to build? Is the survival
of Yanukovych worth a new Cold War? If it is, Assad is safe: the
Russians will not abandon Syria since this would demonstrate how
easily they might turn their backs on “Russian” Ukraine. But what if
the US offered Putin carte blanche in the Ukraine in return for his
abandonment of the Assad regime? Obama could once more make his
fraudulent claim that it was American military threats – rather than
Russian mediation – that forced Assad to hand over his chemical
weapons to the UN. And insist that Assad must bow to the transitional
government which the Americans and British and other EU nations have
been trying to foist upon his regime at Geneva.

Assad, however, is a survivor. His Baath party was schooled in
self-preservation by Putin’s predecessors. Assad may understand
Yanukovych; yet he knows Putin better. Not for nothing do the
Egyptians admiringly call the Russian leader “the fox”. That’s why
Putin has sent his personal mediator to Kiev. Washing its hands of
Damascus would do incalculable harm to Moscow’s standing in the “new”
Middle East. The Syrians realise Russia is big enough to fight on two
fronts. So Putin will probably just have to go on struggling for his
allies – before Ukraine turns as bloody as Syria – in the hope that
Obama will turn out to be as sanctimonious – and toothless – in Kiev,
as he was over Damascus.

From: Baghdasarian

Paskevich’s film in Gyumri

13:13 | February 22,2014 | Social

On February 25, with the initiative of “Media Center”, Tigran
Paskevich’s “Impossible is possible. Prototype search” documentary
film’s screening and discussion will take place in Gyumri journalists’
“Asparez” club.

The film focuses on the Soviet Union’s phenomena called “samizdat”
(“inqnahrat” in Armenian), the literary and informational layer which
was secretly (within narrow scope) printed and spread and was
officially qualified as “dangerous” and “anti-Soviet”.

According to Tigran Paskevich Samizdat is very similar to internet’s
structure: in both domains, the person himself decides what to read.

The film sums up the history of the samizdat’s creation and its
different forms, samizdat publishers’ activities in the Soviet Union.
The activities of Armenian dissidents and samizdat authors are also
shown in the film.

From: Baghdasarian