Author: Dabaghian Diana

95ÈME COMMEMORATION DU GENOCIDE ARMENIEN : DISCOURS DE RICHARD MALLIE
par Stephane

armenews
jeudi13 mai 2010
FRANCE

Madame le 1er Adjoint representant le Senateur-Maire, Monsieur le
Conseiller General, Mesdames Messieurs les elus, Mesdames Messieurs
les representants de la communaute armenienne, Chers amis,

Vous le savez, c’est toujours avec une grande emotion que je suis a
vos côtes pour commemorer le genocide armenien de 1915.

Dans le sens des valeurs republicaines, par l’intermediaire de
Madame le 1er Adjoint, je tiens a saluer M. Roland Povinelli,
le Senateur-Maire d’Allauch. Au-dela de toute consideration de
sensibilite politique, nous retrouvons aujourd’hui, ici au Logis
Neuf, pour dire a la communaute armenienne toute notre amitie et
notre indefectible soutien.

Pour cette 95ème commemoration, je voudrais vous dire combien je suis
choque d’entendre des personnes contester, en toute impunite, jusque
sur le territoire francais, la realite horrible du genocide armenien.

Cela n’est pas admissible,

Cela ne doit plus etre tolere !

A l’occasion du recent Sommet sur la Securite nucleaire aux Etats
Unis, le Premier ministre turc Erdogan, n’a pas manque de nier une
fois de plus le genocide des Armeniens.

Il etait l’invite d’un presentateur vedette, Charlie Rose, dans une
emission de grande ecoute diffusee aux Etats Unis.

Le presentateur Charlie Rose n’a pas hesite a evoquer la question
du genocide armenien. " Franchement, de quelle preuve historique de
plus a-ton besoin en ce qui concerne le genocide ? " lui a demande
le presentateur

Quand on voit les images de l’emission, on voit bien que cette
question irrite au plus haut point le premier ministre. Il interrompt
le journaliste vedette de la television – je le cite – : " Tout d’abord
laissez-moi dire que c’est vous qui dites genocide. Je suis desole de
vous entendre dire ca. Pour etre très clair, nous n’acceptons pas le
genocide. C’est un mensonge total. J’invite les gens a le prouver. Je
dis que ca n’incombe pas aux hommes politiques.

Il incombe aux historiens de voir ca. ". Fin de citation

C’est justement pour cela, qu’en 2006, j’ai fait partie des cinq
parlementaires des Bouches-du-Rhône qui, en dehors de toutes
considerations partisanes, ont redige en commun une proposition de
loi pour reprimer penalement le negationnisme concernant le genocide
armenien.

(outre moi-meme, il s’agit des deputes Christophe Masse, Roland
Blum et des Senateurs Jean-Francois Picheral et Robert Bret) Mais
aujourd’hui ce texte attend toujours un vote conforme du Senat pour
devenir une loi de la Republique.

Avec vous, ici, a Allauch, j’appelle avec force mes collègues Senateurs
a inscrire ce texte a l’ordre du jour, car il est impensable de rester
au milieu du gue.

Je le fais ici, a Allauch, d’autant plus volontiers que mon excellent
collègue parlementaire Roland Povinelli est Senateur.

Alors, comme Roland Povinelli n’hesite jamais a venir trouver le
depute de la circonscription quand il y a une question qui le chagrine,
aujourd’hui c’est – gentiment – a mon tour !

C’est a mon tour de dire avec amitie a Roland, " allez Monsieur le
Senateur, je compte sur ta voix forte pour faire inscrire au Senat
cette proposition de loi a l’ordre du jour ".

Pourquoi ? Pourquoi est-ce que tu continues a te battre autant,
me demande-t-on parfois ?

Parce que, j’entends ici ou la, et meme en France, certains qui nous
disent : " ce n’est pas a la loi d’ecrire l’histoire ".

Alors, pour tous ceux qui essayent de faire croire que nous voudrions
reecrire l’histoire avec une loi, je voudrais simplement faire une
citation, rien qu’une citation.

Voici le texte d’un telegramme transmis par le ministre Talaat Pacha
aux cellules de Jeunes-Turcs, je le cite : " Le gouvernement a decide
de detruire tous les Armeniens residant en Turquie. Il faut mettre fin
a leur existence, aussi criminelles que soient les mesures a prendre.

Il ne faut tenir compte ni de l’âge, ni du sexe. Les scrupules de
conscience n’ont pas leur place ici ".

Quand on lit cela, on voit bien qu’il n’y a pas besoin de reecrire
l’histoire : l’histoire est ecrite !

La Turquie de 1915 a bien ete le theâtre d’une extermination methodique
et planifiee du peuple armenien.

Depuis le tribunal de Nuremberg, c’est ce que l’on appelle un genocide.

L’Etat turc s’est toujours efforce de nier la realite du Genocide
armenien et de se derober a toute action qui pourrait attenuer les
consequences de 1915.

Alors, pendant plus de 90 ans, l’Etat turc a continue a effacer les
traces des crimes commis contre les Armeniens, en detruisant des
centaines d’antiques eglises armeniennes et de vieux monastères,
en demolissant des ~uvres d’art culturelles, en recrivant l’histoire.

Le gouvernement turc actuel s’est embarque dans une politique continue
de negation du Genocide armenien, aussi bien a l’exterieur qu’a
l’interieur de la Turquie.

Aussi, je le dis souvent, je le redis ici très clairement et sans
nuances : j’etais, je suis et je resterai donc contre l’adhesion de
la Turquie a l’Union Europeenne.

A l’assemblee, j’ai depose avec mon collègue Claude BODIN un amendement
au projet de loi de finances pour 2010, cosigne par plusieurs dizaines
de deputes, visant a diminuer de manière drastique les credits de
preadhesion accordes a la Turquie, estimes d’ici 2012 a près de –
tenez vous bien – 4 milliards d’euros ! Rien que cela !

Mais, nous voyons bien que le lobbying en faveur de l’adhesion de la
Turquie a l’union europeenne se renforce.

Alors, permettez-moi d’honorer avec vous la memoire de ceux qui ont ete
extermines pour la seule raison qu’ils etaient Armeniens et chretiens.

Je terminerais mon propos en disant que certains ont pense se moquer
de moi en m’appelant jusque dans la presse : " Mallie l’armenien ".

Eh bien, qu’on se le dise, je suis fier que l’on m’appelle " Mallie
l’armenien ". C’est pour moi un honneur !

Je suis et je resterai inlassablement et, si vous me le permettez,
affectueusement, aux côtes de la communaute armenienne

Merci de votre attention.

INVESTMENT PROJECT ON CREATION OF ARPI LAKE NATIONAL PARK WITH BUDGET OF 2.2 MLN EURO ‘THREATENS’ WITH SOCIAL-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF SHIRAK REGION

ArmInfo
2010-05-12 14:22:00

ArmInfo. The investment project on creation of Arpi Lake national park
in Ashotsk district of Shirak region with budget of 2.2 mln Euro is not
only of ecological but also of social-economic importance. Within the
frames of this project, it is envisaged to create a unique ecological
corridor in the territories of three neighbouring countries: Armenia,
Georgia and Turkey. According to Armenian Minister of Nature Protection
Aram Harutyunyan, the negotiation process on near-border cooperation
with Georgia is at quite an advanced stage.

Implementation of a project on creation of Arpi Lake national park
may become a catalyser in solution of numerous problems the regional
authorities face, such as preservation of the unique biodiversity,
development of the transport infrastructure, bee breeding and cattle
reeding as a primary business of residents of the whole Ashotsk region,
as well as creation of a favourable business atmosphere.

However, implementation of such projects is difficult without
political support, German Ambassador to Armenia Hans-Jochen Schmidt
said. He expressed hope that the project will assure social-economic
development of Ashotsk region and will allow to solve such important
problems as creation of transport communication. The ambassador’s
optimism and hope was shared by Head of KfW German Bank in Armenia
Karapet Gevorkyan. "I attach special importance to the social-economic
component of this programme and I hope that its implementation will
allow to enhance the living standards of the local population",
Gevorkyan emphasized. Construction of the administrative building
in the territory of Arpi Lake national park, the foundation-stone of
which was laid on May 11, has become the first step in creation of the
park. It is scheduled to complete construction of this building in June
2011 and develop Ashotsk region’s social- economic development plan.

To note, the project on creation of Arpi Lake national park is carried
out within the frames of a regional agreement on creation of reserved
areas in the Armenian district of Javakhk (Ashotsk), signed in October
2005 among Armenia’s Ministry of Nature Protection, Economy Ministry,
Finance Ministry and KfW German Bank. The programme is implemented
by Armenia’s Ministry of Nature Protection, Economy Ministry, Finance
Ministry and KfW German Bank. The programme is implemented by Armenia’s
Ministry of Nature Protection and the World Wildlife Foundation.

"AZERBAIJAN RETAINS POSSIBILITY TO SOLVE THE CONFLICT BASED ON ITS OWN INTERESTS"

Today
litics/67679.html
May 11 2010
Azerbaijan

Interview with research fellow at the Russia-based Institute of
Religion and Politics and political expert Zurab Todua.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev pays an official visit to Turkey
today. What do you expect from this visit? How can you characterize
the current state of the Russia-Turkey relations?

These relations can be characterized as very good and even excellent,
mutually beneficial with great potential. Relations between Russia
and Turkey are developing continuously and steadily over the last 15
years. Today, both countries share many political, economic, cultural
and even military ties.

During the current visit more than 20 papers in the field of trade
and economic relations, transport, agriculture, energy, education
are expected to be signed. Medvedev said in an interview published
in the Turkish newspaper "Zaman" on May 10 that "Russia and Turkey
are becoming strategic partners, and Moscow sees Ankara as good and
reliable neighbor. The intention of the parties to form a top-level
Cooperation Council to be led by the Russian president and Prime
Minister of Turkey supports this statement. The objective of this
council is to develop a strategy and direction of development of
bilateral relations, monitor the implementation of important projects
and facilitate contacts between businessmen of both countries.

I think that the Russian-Turkish relations can serve as an example
of how one can and should build relationships between countries.

However, it is obvious that none of this would happen if Moscow and
Ankara were focused on their past finding out which party suffered
much from the Russian-Turkish war. The leaders and political community
of Russia and Turkey show the highest state of wisdom. They left the
history to historians, and engaged to establish and develop mutually
beneficial relations. I am sure this course is the most suitable and
profitable, and it is supported by the vast majority of population
in Russia and Turkey.

Some experts believe, that lately Turkey has played an increasing role
in the region. Do you agree with the views that Russia is concerned
with this kind of situation, as well as prospects for Turkey to become
a regional superpower?

No, I do not agree with this kind of assessment of the situation.

Turkey behaves responsibly in the international arena and in the South
Caucasus region and understands all the features and complexity of
international problems and issues. There are no serious grounds to
be concerned with prospects for Turkey’s becoming a regional power.

Russia and Turkey today are involved together in large-scale trade
and economic projects and communications, which are estimated at tens
and even hundreds (potentially) billions of dollars. No one wants to
thwart these plans. I am sure the leaders of Russia and Turkey will
always be able to agree, without prejudice to their own interests on
all contentious issues.

Are Russia and Turkey’s views on resolution of the Armenia-Azerbaijan
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict similar or different?

Official positions of Moscow and Ankara are based on a need to preserve
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. We can see the similarity of
positions in this respect. Some differences are observed in approaches
to the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh, security and protection of
the interests of its residents, the return of refugees and others. I
believe that, in general, there are more common points, rather than
differences.

In your opinion, can Turkey become fourth co-chair of the OSCE Minsk
Group? Can this facilitate resolution to the Armenia-Azerbaijan
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?

Theoretically, it is possible. But in practice, I think this proposal
will meet opposition as Turkey obviously sympathises with Azerbaijan.

Turkey’s becoming Minsk Group co-chair will strengthen Azerbaijan’s
position. It is unlikely to accelerate the settlement process.

The Minsk Group is quite functional and effective in its current
composition. All the complaints about it is to the fact that the
conflicting parties expect a miracle from it, namely, a solution to
that would be fully satisfy only Azerbaijanis or only Armenians. But
this is impossible. The final document on the conflict settlement
will be a compromise.

How do you assess the current situation in the South Caucasus region
as a whole?

The answer to this question requires a thorough analysis of the
situation in each country of the South Caucasus. If we restrict
ourselves very brief overview, we can say the following. I have
repeatedly said before that Azerbaijan is in a better position than
other countries in the region. These are geographic location and oil.

But all this would be insufficient if Azerbaijan was not lucky with
its rulers.

Heydar Aliyev was a politician from God. I remember in what condition
he took Azerbaijan in 1993, and how left in 2003. During these
difficult ten years I have repeatedly visited Azerbaijan (three to
five times a year) and witnessed everything. Ilham Aliyev continues
the course of his father and does it more than successfully. Yes,
there are still problems, but they are all solvable.

With regard to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the main thing here is that
Azerbaijan retains possibility to solve the conflict based on its own
interests. Armenia is in a more difficult position. Armenia’s stance
left the country aside from the promising economic projects. Indeed,
today Armenia is lagging behind for its socio-economic development.

AZERBAIJANI LEADERS OF WORLD WAR LL EQUAL TO STALIN – HISTORIAN
Leyla Tagiyeva News.Az

news.az
May 11 2010
Azerbaijan

Eldar Ismaylov News.Az interviews Eldar Ismaylov, head of the Center
"For civil public", professor of the Baku State University and famous
historian.

How should Azerbaijan treat the ideas of reviewing results of the
Second world war, as well as countries and organizations proposing
such initiatives?

Azerbaijan is a participant of war and as he is a participant of the
anti-Hitler coalition, it can be considered that the war led with the
countries of anti-Hitler coalition was fair and its results feature
the people’s efforts in the struggle for victory. In addition, the
issue is about the degree the Patriotic war can be applied to the
history of Azerbaijan. Can Azerbaijan consider this war patriotic?

Undoubtedly, it can. Naturally, this war was patriotic for the people
before my generation, for the people of my generation and for the
people of the generation following mine. As the Azerbaijani population
took the war as a struggle for justice, this influenced the position
of the Azerbaijani government too.

Meanwhile, how can the state and the society treat the Azerbaijani
legion partaking in the war on the side of fascist Germany?

This is an important issue for Azerbaijan. At the same time, it
should be taken into account that the war was patriotic for the whole
population of Azerbaijan. It is necessary to confess this for a part
of the Azerbaijani population did not feel links to the history of the
Soviet state, a part of the population was insulted and resented with
the Soviet system. The population was seriously wounded, therefore,
it could not perceive this war as its own, that is as the war of its
people. In this connection, the war was perceived as a struggle for
restoration of violated rights by a greater part of the Azerbaijani
population, as well as Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Georgians,
Armenians and other peoples. Therefore, the legion formation cannot
be connected only with some subjective reasons. Its creation cannot
be connected with objective reasons, as a struggle of a part of the
population against Bolsheviks.

The Azerbaijani legion created in 1943 and Azerbaijani battalions
fighting before than in 1942 on the Caucasus front consisted of people
mostly not accepting the Soviet power or socialistic system. They
could not reconcile with the occupation of Azerbaijan by the Russian
troops. At the same time, it should be taken into account that there
was a polarization of opinion within the Azerbaijani society. But
mostly, a greater part of the population sympathized to the socialistic
system.

Is there a need to assess and define the role of Azerbaijan in this
war and how can be feature this war in Azerbaijani historiography?

I think the war for Azerbaijan was Patriotic like for the whole
Soviet Union. It can hardly be said that Azerbaijanis fighting for
Germany were struggling for freedom and independence of Azerbaijan,
since if Germany had won in that war, Azerbaijan would hardly gain
independence. Nevertheless, most people considered like that and fought
on the side of Germany. I knew most of those people, therefore, I would
like to note that probably they were persuaded of the righteousness
of their actions. But this does not mean they were right.

How can the public treat war participants fighting on the side of
the Soviet Union and Hitler Germany?

The present generation does not know anything about this war. They
have the only homeland-Azerbaijan. Naturally, in these conditions that
war seems alien to the young people, that is the war of a different
state. We should admit that. Therefore, Moscow is not closer to them
than Washington or Berlin. I have been teaching at a high school for
many years and I can say that the Soviet Union is not home for the
present generation of young people who were mostly born after the
90’s. Therefore, Patriotic war cannot be patriotic for them. We were
born in the Soviet Union and it was our homeland. But this does not
mean that the next generation should also treat this issue like this,
they have a right to think differently.

Which can be the attitude to Stalin in the light of the recent demands
to rehabilitate this historical personality including in Azerbaijan?

My attitude to Stalin is clear. Before war, he committed genocide of
the Soviet people, including Azerbaijanis. We cannot reject this. The
soviet union was based on the principle of class struggle, that is
provision of welfare of people envisioned termination of another
part of the people. In this connection, I would like to repeat that
Stalin committed genocide of his own people regardless of their
ethnic belonging.

As for Stalin’s activity during war, he demonstrated himself as
a real commander and a leader of the state. Speaking about it, we
should adhere to the principle that history cannot be treated equally,
it request objective analysis.

And how can the Azerbaijani leaders of the period of war be assessed?

The then leaders of Azerbaijan must be assessed the way Stalin war.

They all followed Stalin’s policy and thus promoted genocide. On
the other hand, in definite periods of life they played a great
role in consolidation of people. First of all, I imply Mirjafar
Baguirov. He played his role in the development of Azerbaijani
national self-identification. These processes were going on par,
though contradicting to each other. But we cannot judge the dead,
this is not real. Therefore, the events and behavior of people should
be treated in terms of that period.

Is it correct to raise the issue of granting the status of hero city
to Baku today?

Yes, the issue is legitimate. Undoubtedly, Baku and the overall
Azerbaijan played a great role in resisting fascist aggression. But
if this problem cannot be settled today, I think it is senseless to
raise this issue.

I would like to note that the status of a hero city was for the
first time granted to four cities including Sevastopol, Stalingrad,
Leningrad and Odessa. Then, considering political conjuncture it was
granted to different cities, in particular, Minsk, Kiev, Moscow and so
on. These were the subjective wishes of different leaders. However,
after granting this status to the aforementioned four cities,
addition granting of the same title to other citizens was senseless,
especially, raising this issue after the USSR collapse in order to
grant the status of a hero city to Baku is impossible, because it is
unclear who will grant the status of the hero city, which stats will
grant the status to the cities that are not part of a single state.

BELGIAN GOVERNMENT WELCOMES EFFORTS AIMED AT ARMENIA-TURKEY RAPPROCHEMENT

NOYAN TAPAN
MAY 11, 2010
YEREVAN

Newly appointed Ambassador of Belgium to Armenia Stephan de Locker
handed over his credentials to RA President Serzh Sargsyan on May
11. Congratulating S. de Locker the RA President expressed hope
that he will make a considerable contribution to development of
Armenia-Belgium relations. S. Sargsyan said that Armenia is deeply
interested in deepening Armenia-Belgium collaboration by bilateral
and many-sided formats.

According to the RA President’s press office, the interlocutors
also exchanged thoughts over regional problems. S. de Locker said
that the Belgian government welcomes efforts aimed at Armenia-Turkey
rapprochement and expresses readiness to support in that complicated
process.

At diplomat’s request S. Sargsyan also presented Armenia’s approaches
on the Nagorno Karabakh peace process current stage.

VIOLENCE AGAINST CHAKHALYAN

Lragir.am
10/05/10

On April 30, 2010 violence was used against Vahagn Chakhalyan and this
is the second time violence is used against him in the Georgian jail.

Hence, the Council coordinating the protection of the rights of
Armenians of Javakhk affirms this incident is determined by the
upcoming election in Georgia on May 30.

The Council, condemning the incident, calls upon international
organizations to properly assess this outrageous step of the Georgian
government which cynically violates its duties in direction of
prevention of violence and other inhuman attitude.

BAKO SAHAKYAN: PEACE HAS BEEN PRESERVED BY NOW THANKS TO HEROIC ARMY OF ARTSAKH

Panorama.am
17:37 10/05/2010

Politics

Artsakh Republic President Bako Sahakyan delivered a speech Sunday
in connection with the Victory Holiday, the Day of the NKR Defense
Army and the liberation of Shoushi, congratulated the veterans,
defense army soldiers, officers, generals.

"Dear compatriots,

Respected veterans of the Great Patriotic and Artsakh Liberation Wars,

Soldiers, officers and generals of the Artsakh Republic Defense Army

I cordially congratulate you on the Victory Holiday, the day of the
Artsakh Republic Defense Army and the liberation of Shoushi.

Today our people celebrate one of the dearest and brightest holidays
– the 65th anniversary of the Victory Day. The entire Soviet people
have been standing in the source of this victory paying a very high
price to withstand the evil threatening both their Motherland and
the whole mankind.

The brave sons of Artsakh had a considerable contribution to forging
this sacred victory. From the very first days of the Great Patriotic
every third person in Artsakh, over 45 thousand people, left for the
battlefront. Half of them never came back.

During the Second World War years our small highland gave 3 marshals,
one admiral of the USSR, dozens of generals, 35 heroes of the Soviet
Union, two of which have been conferred this title twice.

The contribution of the Artsakh people to securing a viable rear
was also heroic. Every single family partook at this cherished
undertaking. Everybody worked day and night guided by this very slogan:
"Everything for the battlefront, everything for the victory".

>>From 1992 to 1994 our generation brought up by the example of
their brave fathers and grandfathers managed to carry on a struggle
against the enemy who wanted to force Nagorno-Karabakh to knees. Our
people not only gave a worthy counter-stroke to the enemy, but also
liberated one of the ancient Armenian fortresses – historical Shoushi,
which symbolizes the beginning of our victories.

For all this we primarily owe to all those who sacrificed their lives
for the freedom of our Motherland. Eternal memory to our martyrs!

With joint efforts of the whole Armenian people, due to the
Armenia-Artsakh-Diaspora trinity our nation managed to confront severe
ordeals and establish peace in the native land. This peace has been
preserved by now thanks to the heroic army of Artsakh that was fated
to be formed and tempered in the war imposed on us.

The Defense army has worthily conquered the right to be the reliable
guarantee of the independence and security of our country and people.

The state will continue direct all efforts to increase efficiency of
the army, to provide continuous development of the country, improve
living conditions of the people, secure peaceful and prosperous life
of the citizens.

Friends, today we celebrate on a nationwide basis the 65th anniversary
of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War, the Day of the Artsakh
Republic Defense Army and the liberation of Shoushi. The heroic pages
of our history became the symbol of dignity, hope, selflessness,
unity and patriotism for all generations. The sons of Artsakh as
worthy descendents of their fathers and grandfathers will continue
their deeds with flying colors and do their best for the sake of our
free and independent Motherland.

Honor and glory to the Armenian people, Honor and glory to the Armenian
Army, Honor to the Artsakh Republic!," the President’s speech reads.

RA OFFICIAL DELEGATION LED BY NA SPEAKER HOVIK ABRAHAMYAN TAKES PART AT MAY FESTIVITIES IN NKR

parliament.am
National Assembly
May 10 2010
Armenia

The official delegation of the Republic of Armenia led by the RA NA
Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan on May 8-9 in the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh
took part in the solemn ceremonies dedicated to the 65th anniversary
of the victory in the Great Patriotic War and 18th anniversary of
the Liberation Day of Shushi and the Day of the NKR Defense Army.

On the delegation were the Deputy Prime Minister Armen Gevorgyan,
the NA Vice Speaker Samvel Nikoyan, the Chairman of the NA Standing
Committee on State and Legal Affairs Davit Harutyunyan, the deputies
Karine Achemyan, Artak Zakaryan, Rustam Gasparyan, Ashot Tonoyan, Ruben
Gevorgyan, Artyush Shahbazyan, Bagrat Sargsyan, Larisa Alaverdyan,
Armen Martirosyan, the Minister of Finance Tigran Davtyan, the Minister
of Urban Development Vardan Vardanyan, the Governor of Syunik Surik
Khachatryan and other officials.

On May 8 NKR NA Speaker Ashot Ghulyan and NKR officials met the
delegation led by the RA NA Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan in the outskirts
of Shushi.

After the short meeting on the same day with NKR President Bako
Sahakyan in Stepanakert the official delegation of the Republic of
Armenia took part in the solemn evening dedicated to three holidays,
which took place in the House of Officer. There the NKR President gave
awards the veterans of the Great Patriotic War, the freedom fighters,
who took part in the Artsakh battle, military servicemen of the NKR
Defense Army.

On the morning of May 9 in the name of the Armenian authorities the
RA NA Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan laid a wreath and flowers in memory
of the victims in the city memorial of Stepanakert.

On the same day the delegation led by the RA NA Speaker Hovik
Abrahamyan left for Shushi. After paying tribute at the tank-monument
near the outskirts of the city the RA NA Speaker laid flowers at
the statue of Vazgen Sargsyan in Shushi, after which he took part
in the Holy Mass ceremony in the Saint Holy Savior Ghazanchetzotz
Mother Cathedral.

In the courtyard of the church the RA NA Speaker in his short
conversation congratulated the whole Armenian people on the occasion
of the May three holidays and said in particular: "The peoples of
Armenia and Artsakh must always be united, as today, more than ever
our unity and tolerance are very important."

Later, RA NA Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan took part at the house-warming
ceremony of the military servicemen of the NKR Defense Army in Shushi,
during which 14 families of the military servicemen were given keys
of newly built flats. The latter received valuable presents by the RA
NA Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan. RA NA Speaker had a walk in the flats,
talked with the new dwellers.

After having a walk Hovik Abrahamyan in his briefing with the
journalists once again congratulated the Armenian people on the
occasion of the May three holidays and said: "We as a power must do
everything for peace and happiness. Today, 14 families of the military
servicemen were given flats, which were built with high quality. Let
God give these 14 families happiness and peace in their flats."

On the same day, ending the visit to the Nagorno Karabakh Republic
the official delegation of the Republic of Armenia the delegation
led by the RA NA Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan, returned to Yerevan.

MAMIGONIAN: ‘DIVIDE ET IMPERA’: THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN PROTOCOLS
By: Marc Mamigonian

The Armenian Weekly
April 2010 Magazine
Mon, May 10 2010

In the discussions surrounding the Turkish-Armenian protocols that have
taken place throughout the last year, there has been a disappointing,
yet hardly unforeseeable, tendency to oversimplify matters and draw
a clear-cut picture with "practical," pro-protocols Armenians on one
side, and "hawkish" diaspora "fanatics" who are dead-set against the
protocols and any normalization with Turkey on the other side. We can
see this as a minor refinement of the well-worn discourse of the Bad
Armenians and the Good Armenians that we have come to know and some
have come to love, or at least to make good use of.

As the Turkish scholar Taner Akcam has aptly described this discourse:

According to the defensive strategies developed by our intellectuals,
the ‘bad’ Armenians aren’t the ones in Turkey or the ones in
neighboring Armenia. The ‘bad’ Armenians are the ones in the diaspora
because the ones who keep ‘insisting on recognition of the genocide’
are actually they. In other words, instead of directly stating that
the problem has to do with defining Armenians as ‘the bogeyman’ and
‘bad,’ they accepted those definitions but changed the object of those
definitions; instead of saying Armenians are ‘bad,’ they stated that
the diaspora is ‘bad.’ In conclusion, the mentality that predominates
in Turkey continued unabated in our intellectuals and continues to
do so.1

In recent discussions, it is the critics of the protocols who have
become the "bad" Armenians, then, and interestingly enough, some
Armenians who had previously been lumped into the "bad" category
because of their emphasis on genocide recognition as such now find
themselves, due to their support of the protocols, transformed
(perhaps only temporarily) into "good" Armenians.

This leads us to Kerem Oktem’s article "The Armenia-Turkey process:
don’t stop now" on OpenDemocracy, which was in turn a response to
articles by Vicken Cheterian and Juan Gabriel Tokatlian.2

It is interesting to note that while Oktem rightly decries a
reductionist understanding of "the highly cosmopolitan Armenian
diaspora" as a univocal entity when, in fact, there is on the
protocols, as on other issues, a wide array of opinions (both pro-
and con- as well as within the pro- and con- "camps"), he seems to
fall into the hardly less reductionist trap of equating those who
oppose the protocols with those who oppose any normalization, of
presenting those who oppose the protocols as a nationalists and those
who support them as humanists. In other words, we have not really
moved beyond the categories of Bad Armenians and Good Armenians-we
have just done some rebranding.

In the former category, clearly, Oktem has placed the political
party the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), which has been
vocally opposed to the protocols. Oktem writes of the ARF that "it
has become trapped in the cage of an old-fashioned, if virulent
nationalism: retribution, compensation, and transfer of land to
Armenia are central to its vocabulary." He contrasts this with the
"humanist organizations" the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU),
the dioceses of the Armenian Churches of America, and the Armenian
Assembly of America (AAA)-groups that support "normalization" even
though genocide recognition "might be the first casualty." He does
not define what he means by a "humanist" organization.

What is at issue here is not these organizations per se or the merits
of their respective approaches to the protocols as such (or to other
issues), but rather how they are being depicted and deployed to suit
a version of the Good Armenian/Bad Armenian discourse. The Armenian
Assembly, in particular, is regularly grouped with the Bad Armenians
due to its long record of working for genocide recognition and lobbying
for the U.S. to pass resolutions affirming the genocide-work that it
shows no signs of abandoning and that has long been the sine qua non
of the Bad Armenian.

It is true that to support the protocols is to support "normalization,"
at least as it is defined by the protocols. But it does not follow
that to oppose the protocols is necessarily to oppose any sort of
normalization, unless one believes that the protocols represent the
only possible route to normalization. Oktem also appears to lump
together all critics of the protocols as virulent nationalists-which
is barely an improvement on lumping together the entire diaspora
as Bad Armenians. It is no wonder, then, that he cannot reconcile
the fact that "serious observers such as Juan Gabriel Tokatlian and
Vicken Cheterian" also take a stance against the protocols. It seems
he simply cannot imagine any "serious" critique of the protocols,
any critique that is not rooted in "virulent nationalism."

But there is an obvious solution to his confusion: Just as there
are people and organizations who support the protocols more or less
uncritically and those who support them with serious reservations,
so, too, are there people and organizations who are in favor of
normalization but who oppose the protocols either in whole or in
part for one or more of a variety of reasons-that is to say, it may
be that their concerns about this or that aspect of the protocols are
so strong that they cannot support them. Is it so inconceivable that a
"serious observer" might hold such a view?

Furthermore, it is fair to say that one "political persuasion" (read:
Dashnak) is more uniformly critical of the protocols, but it does not
follow that all who are critical are of the same political persuasion;
some, in fact, have close connections with organizations that have
publicly stated their support for the protocols, and many (most?) have
no political or organizational ties or loyalties whatsoever. Some
critics, as should be obvious, are not Armenian.

Nonetheless, Oktem crafts a sharp distinction between the "nationalist"
Armenians who oppose the protocols mainly because they hamper genocide
recognition and the "humanist" Armenians who support the protocols
even though it means sacrificing genocide recognition.

Yet the ABGU and the other organizations that issued a joint public
statement said clearly that they do not support the protocols at
the expense of genocide recognition-declaring that there "should be
no question that we also continue to stand firmly with the Nagorno
Karabakh Republic to ensure its freedom and security as well as with
all those working for universal affirmation of the Armenian Genocide."3

Oktem concludes that opposition to the protocols is motivated by
fear among those who "have long used the genocide to scare critical
minds into conformity, to rule over their flocks as they pleased,
and to claim the right to speak in their name" that they will lose
their power. He does not seem to consider other things that would
cause reasonable people not to support the protocols. For example, as
he himself says, "The joint historical commission, which the second
protocol proposes, is indeed a bad compromise, if not a complete
sell-out." Would it not be a reasonable or "serious" stance to advocate
normalization without such a "bad compromise"? For some, clearly,
the proposed commission is too high a price to pay, for reasons that
have been well expressed by Roger Smith among others.4 Is such a
stance incomprehensible and incompatible with "serious" thinking?

It is striking how similar some of Oktem’s points are to those in a
column by Cengiz Aktar in Hurriyet entitled "The Armenian Initiative
and the Hrant Dink Case," in which he nearly proclaims the end of
nationalism in Turkey.5 Aktar, one of the initiators of the 2008
"apology campaign," also observes that "[o]wing to the protocols,
differences have surfaced within the diaspora-clear evidence that it
never was a monolithic entity." Evidently, if nothing else, we have
the protocols to thank for this breakthrough in perception. However,
"Within the diaspora, there are a limited number of people who are
making a lot of noise. They do not care about the future of the
Armenian Republic, make unrealistic demands and claim that it sold
out the diaspora." It is self-evident, apparently, that anyone who is
critical of the protocols must "not care about the future of Armenia."

Aktar, too, contrasts the "unrealistic," "uncaring" noisemakers with "a
silent majority that is calm and sober enough to grasp the importance
of the protocols," which he identifies with the AGBU. He does not,
of course, say how he knows it is a silent majority.

Aktar then gives a short quote from the statement from the AGBU Central
Board of Directors: "[The protocols] mark a significant moment in
the history of relations between the Armenian and Turkish peoples.

It presents major ramifications for both the government of the newly
independent Republic of Armenia and the Armenian nation worldwide."

There is nothing controversial in these words. They state the obvious:
The protocols are "significant" and present "major ramifications."

Such language could derive from either a declaration in favor of the
protocols or one against them. There is no dispute over whether the
protocols are "significant" or present "major ramifications." The
dispute is over what the significance is and what the ramifications
are.

It is revealing to read the entire AGBU statement in the context of the
sharp "nationalist" vs. "humanist" distinction that has been drawn (see
the AGBU statement here: ).

For example, after favorably noting the "pragmatic policy [of the
Armenian government] in its negotiations with Turkey," it goes on to
state: "However, as practical as such a policy may be, it should not
be implemented at the expense of the inalienable rights of the Armenian
people. We believe the authorities in Armenia, as administrators of the
state, must be guided by the same pan-national goals and aspirations
in making these difficult and far-reaching decisions. The documents
establishing diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey touch
directly or indirectly upon the Armenian Genocide and our territorial
demands. While we understand the importance for the Republic
of Armenia to have normal diplomatic relations with neighboring
countries, including Turkey, we believe that the inviolable Armenian
Case in its broadest sense and the international recognition of the
Armenian Genocide should transcend any diplomatic consideration"
(emphasis mine).

And then towards the end: "AGBU unwaveringly adheres to its national
policy of supporting the homeland and safeguarding the inviolable
rights of the Armenian nation, and its historical, material and
cultural legacy" (emphasis mine).

If such language as appears in bold above were used in a statement
against the protocols, would the "humanist" tag be stripped away and
replaced with the label "old-fashioned, if virulent nationalism"? Or
should one assume that Aktar and Oktem are fully in support of these
aspects of the statement?

It is interesting to see how organizations that have hitherto mostly
been lumped together as part of the powerful, nationalistic Armenian
Diaspora lobbying machine are now being distinguished among. Noisy
nationalists over here! Sober humanists over there! Oktem asks the
rhetorical question, "Is it possible that the highly cosmopolitan
Armenian diaspora, in 2009, can or would speak with a single voice?"

He answers with a resounding "No!" But the more complete inferred
answer from both his and Aktar’s commentaries appears to be "No! It
speaks with two voices!" An optimist might view that as an improvement
of 100 percent!

It appears that, within the current revised Good Armenian/Bad Armenian
schematic, if you support the protocols and talk about "the inalienable
rights of the Armenian people" you are a "humanist." But if you do
not support them and talk about "the inalienable rights of the entire
Armenian Nation" you are a "nationalist."6

You are a "humanist" if you support the protocols and say "we
understand the importance for the Republic of Armenia to have normal
diplomatic relations with neighboring countries, including Turkey,
we believe that the inviolable Armenian Case in its broadest sense
and the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide should
transcend any diplomatic consideration." But you are a "nationalist"
if you do not support the protocols and say, "As neighboring states,
Armenia and Turkey are bound to take steps to normalize relations [but]
neighborly relations can be established between the two countries
only when Turkey recognizes the Armenian Genocide and reestablishes
the rights of the Armenian people."7

If you support the protocols, it is "humanistic" to refer to
"the inviolable rights of the Armenian nation." But it if you do
not support the protocols, it is "nationalistic" to refer to "the
unwavering rights of the Armenian people."8

And there is "humanism" in "our territorial demands" if you support the
protocols, but "nationalism" if you oppose the protocols and mention
"the dispossession of Western Armenia."9

Again, this is not about the AGBU, ARF, AAA, Armenian National
Committee, etc. The point to be made is not that the so-called
"nationalists" are really "humanists," or the so-called "humanists"
are really "nationalists."

The point to be made is about how problematic it is to divide up
Armenians along such lines. It is about recognizing a trap that is
part of the legacy of imperialism. The Romans had a name for it:
Divide et impera.

***

Endnotes

1. Taner Akcam, "Armenia, diaspora, and facing history,"
The Armenian Reporter, posted Nov. 28, 2008 on
iaspora-and-facing-history.

2. Kerem Oktem, "The Armenia-Turkey process:
don’t stop now," posted Oct. 14, 2009 on
ia-turkey-process-don-t-stop-now.

Juan Gabriel Tokatlian, "Armenia and Turkey:
forgetting genocide," posted Oct. 12, 2009 on
nd-turkey-forgetting-genocide.

Vicken Cheterian, "Armenia-Turkey: genocide,
blockade, diplomacy," posted Oct. 13, 2009 on
urkey-genocide-blockade-diplomacy.

3. "Joint statement of major Armenian-American institutions welcoming
the president of the Republic of Armenia," posted Oct. 1, 2009 on

4. Roger Smith, "The Politics of Genocide and the Turkey-Armenia
Protocols," The Armenian Weekly, posted Oct. 24, 2009 on
itics-of-genocide-and-the-turkey-armenia-protocols /.

5. Posted Oct. 16, 2009 on
wards-armenia-and-the-hrant-dink-murder-case-2009- 10-16.

6. "ARF-ER Issues Statement After Meeting with
Sarkisian in New York," Asbarez, posted Oct. 4, 2009 on
fter-meeting-with-sarkisian-in-new-york/.

7. "ARF Bureau Issues Announcement on Protocols,"
The Armenian Weekly, posted Sept. 2, 2009 on
sues-announcement-on-protocols/.

8. Ibid.

9. "ARF-ER Issues Statement After Meeting with Sarkisian in New York,"
Asbarez, posted Oct. 4, 2009.

Interfax, Russia
May 7 2010

Armenian, Azerbaijani leaders do not plan to meet in Moscow

YEREVAN May 7

So far no arrangements have been made for a possible meeting between
the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents, Serzh Sargsyan and Ilham
Aliyev, on the sidelines of an informal summit of the CIS and the
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) that are planned to be
held in Moscow on May 8, the Armenian leader’s spokesman Armen
Arzumanyan told journalists.

Azerbaijan’s media reported earlier that Aliyev and Sargsyan could
meet in Moscow during the summit.