China: Turkey slams France over adoption of Armenian genocide bill

People’s Daily, China
Oct 13 2006
Turkey slams France over adoption of Armenian genocide bill

Turkish Foreign Ministry on Thursday slammed the French Parliament’s
adoption of a proposed draft law criminalizing any denial of the
alleged massacres of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire during World
War I.
Relations between Turkey and France have suffered “a heavy blow due
to irresponsible initiatives of several French politicians who are
not able to predict consequences of their policies,” the ministry
said in a statement.
“Despite our all diplomatic and parliamentary initiatives, and
efforts of our citizens living in France, non-governmental
organizations and business circles, the French parliament adopted the
bill submitted by the Socialist Party on criminalizing of any denial
of so-called Armenian genocide. We profoundly regret the adoption of
the bill,” the statement said.
French lawmakers on Thursday voted 106-19 for the bill, which calls
for up to a year in prison and fines of up to 56,000 U.S. dollars for
anyone who denies the Armenian genocide, according to the Turkish
media.
The bill must be passed by the Senate and signed by French President
Jacques Chirac, the reports said.
Reacting to the adoption of the bill, Turkish Parliament Speaker
Bulent Arinc said on Thursday, “It is a shameful and hostile
resolution. It is totally unacceptable.”
Arinc expressed his regret over adoption of the draft and said,
“France is considered the cradle of individual freedoms. This
decision contradicts with freedom of thought and expression.”
Turkey, a secular Muslim country which is seeking for the European
Union (EU) membership, has vowed to impose economic sanctions on
France if the bill is passed in the French parliament.
According to the Zaman daily newspaper, Turkey is the fifth- largest
customer of France outside the EU. The volume of trade between Turkey
and France is about 10 billion dollars. French exports to Turkey are
5.9 billion dollars while its import remains at 3.8 billion dollars.
Turkey has always denied that up to 1.5 million Armenians were
subjected to genocide in the period between 1915 and 1923.
However, it does acknowledge that up to 300,000 Armenians died during
fighting and efforts to relocate populations away from the war zone
in eastern Turkey.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ANKARA: French companies say: "we believe in Turkey"

Sabah, Turkey
Oct 13 2006
French companies say: “we believe in Turkey”
Renault, the longest standing French company in Turkey said:
“companies which contribute to export and the development of the
country believe in Turkey.”
After the approval of the Armenian genocide denial bill in France,
Renault declared in writing that: “Renault believes in Turkey and is
monitoring these happenings very closely.” The communication manager
of the company, Jean-Christophe Nougaret, stated that Renault has
performed commercial and industrial activities within the partnership
of OYAK for 37 years and thus Renault has been contributing to the
development and continuous growth of Turkey with its production and
export performances. ”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Beirut: Outstanding – and outspoken – Turk novelist Pamuk wins Nobel

The Daily Star, Lebanon
Oct 13 2006
Outstanding – and outspoken – Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk wins Nobel
Prize for Literature
Writer recently occupied international spotlight not for his work but
as a target of his country’s prosecutors
By Kaelen Wilson-Goldie
Daily Star staff
Friday, October 13, 2006
BEIRUT: His name has been floated for years now, with bookies often
quoting the odds in his favor over a pack of strong contenders –
including Syrian poet Adonis, American novelist Philip Roth, Polish
journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski, Mexico’s Carlos Fuentes, Algeria’s
Assia Djebar and Peru’s Mario Vargas Llosa. But the coveted Nobel
Prize for literature has eluded Orhan Pamuk – until now.
On Thursday, Turkey’s leading novelist finally got the award, making
him the first Nobel literature laureate from the Middle East – if one
considers Turkey to be a part of the region, and this newspaper does
– since the late Naguib Mahfouz of Egypt, who won in 1988. (Israel’s
Shmuel Yosef Agnon split the Nobel with German poet and playwright
Nelly Sachs in 1966. No Turkish writer has ever been honored in the
prize’s 105-year history).
Making the announcement at mid-day on Thursday, the Swedish Academy
in Stockholm – charged with doling out the award and its attendant
check for $1.36 million – praised Pamuk for discovering “in the quest
for the melancholic soul of his native city … new symbols for the
clash and interlacing of cultures.”
Pamuk has published one memoir – “Istanbul: Memories and the City” –
and nine novels, five of which have been translated into English.
Overall, his work has earned widespread critical acclaim and
international recognition while finding its way into print in some 40
different languages.
That said, with the exception of a pirated translation from Syria of
his first novel “Cavdet Bey,” his work is not widely available in
Arabic, and Pamuk himself has reportedly made a few disparaging
remarks in the past about there being little need for such
translations as so few Arabic speakers read novels.
However, outside literary circles and those who do, whatever the
language, read novels, Pamuk is best known as the famous writer who
went on trial in Turkey. In February 2005, he gave an interview to
the Swiss publication Das Magazin, in which he declared: “Thirty
thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and
nobody but me dares to talk about it.” For that statement, a
prosecutor named Turgay Evsen charged Pamuk with violating Article
301 of Turkey’s controversial penal code, which prohibits public
denigration of Turkish national identity, the republic or the
national assembly.
In December 2005, Pamuk’s trial stalled as soon as it started. The
presiding judge, Metin Aydin, postponed the proceedings for two
months on a technicality and eventually the entire case was dropped.
Though he is known for his reclusive and introverted work ethic,
Pamuk never ceases to speak out in defense of free speech and on
behalf of lesser-known colleagues who, without the benefit of kicking
up an international storm of ultra-nationalist protestors on one side
and lemon-faced European Union observers on the other, have been or
are being brought up on the same charges, particularly the
Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. Another Turkish novelist,
Elif Shafak, went on trial for violating Article 301 last month. Her
case, dropped for lack of evidence, had the rare distinction of being
based entirely on the words Shafak put into the mouths of fictional
characters in her novel “The Bastard of Istanbul.”
Beyond his ability to puncture the often tough tissue of
sociopolitical taboo, Pamuk is arguably unrivaled in his ability to
capture the complexities of the Turkish psyche and, more broadly, the
disappointments and depravations of those living in the developing –
but not yet embraced as developed – world.

Pamuk is a brilliant literary stylist. He coils one story into
another and then another, all in the space of a single page, often
even a single paragraph. He crafts his novels into compelling,
blood-rushing narratives of pursuit – his books are essentially
detective stories shot-through with post-modern twists, turns,
doubling backs and returns.
“Snow,” his most recent novel to appear in English, follows the poet
Ka to the remote Turkish city of Kars, where he is to report an
investigative feature for a newspaper on a rash of suicides by
so-called “headscarf girls.” Really, though, he has traveled to this
foreboding corner of the country to find his first love, Ipek. Just
as he sits down with her in a cafe, a man one table over is shot to
death in the chest, a victim of political assassination.
Yet the core of “Snow” is filled with a certain melancholy
characteristic of all Pamuk’s work. The poet Ka – secular, Western –
wonders why people are growing so religious. He strains to understand
but at the same time seems to seek an alternative source of
spirituality – inseparable from the creativity of his craft – to
either fill the gap of godlessness or protect him from the impulse to
give up and go religious himself. (Pamuk, who was born to an elite
family in Istanbul, has said in the past that members of his social
class regard religion as the reserve of the poor and provincial).
Yet Pamuk’s take on class division betrays no arrogance. Rather, it
is part of a more mournful attempt to document and probe what is too
often reduced to a clash of civilizations. In 2001, Pamuk penned one
of the most cogent responses ever committed in print to the ways in
which the attacks of September 11, 2001, changed the dynamic of
global politics.
“The Western world is scarcely aware of [the] overwhelming feeling of
humiliation that is experienced by most of the world’s population,”
he wrote in The New York Review of Books. “This is the grim, troubled
private sphere that neither magical realistic novels that endow
poverty and foolishness with charm nor the exoticism of popular
travel literature manages to fathom. And it is while living within
this private sphere that most people in the world today are afflicted
by spiritual misery.
“The problem facing the West is not only to discover which terrorist
is preparing a bomb in which tent, which cave, or which street of
which city, but also to understand the poor and scorned and
‘wrongful’ majority that does not belong to the West.”
Pamuk’s strength as a writer lies in his skill for channeling such
concerns into fiction and then going one step further by inscribing
them onto the surface of the city he loves most. Mid-way through his
masterful novel “The Black Book,” Pamuk’s only work of fiction set
wholly in Istanbul, the protagonist Galip, who is searching for his
missing wife and her half-brother, whom he suspects may be together,
remarks: “While it was possible to perceive the city’s old age, its
misfortune, its lost splendor, its sorrow and pathos in the faces of
the citizens, it was not the symptom of a specifically contrived
secret but of a collective defeat, history, and complicity.” – With
agencies
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian genocide: The EU is picking the wrong battle

Paris Link, France
Oct 13 2006
Armenian genocide: The EU is picking the wrong battle
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:40:00
Gareth Cartman
A law, proposed by the Socialist party, has been voted through the
Assemblée Nationale today. Turkey is furious, as is the EU. However,
they forget one thing – the holocaust is banned in many countries
across Europe. Time to be less selective with our memories.
A little perspective. Holocaust denial is illegal in the following
countries:
Austria (6 month to 20 years prison sentence),
Belgium (maximum one year sentence or a fine),
Czech Republic (6 month to 2 years prison sentence),
France (maximum two year sentence or a fine),
Germany (maximum five year sentence or a fine),
Israel (maximum five year sentence),
Lithuania (maximum ten year sentence),
Poland (maximum three year sentence),
Romania (6 month to 2 year sentence),
Slovakia (maximum three year sentence)
Switzerland (maximum 15 month sentence or fine)
Today, French socialists have voted through a law that will make
denial of the Armenian holocaust illegal as well, with a one year
jail sentence and a fine. Not wishing to take part in a debate that
they morally could not win, the UMP refused to take part, making the
actual vote (106-19) something of a cakewalk for the Socialists.
The reaction has been hostile. Firstly, the Turks have taken to the
streets in protest outside the French embassy in Ankara. There has
been talk of a boycott of French products, which the government moved
to deny quickly – stressing that the people would make that choice.
The government then went on to mention that French companies would be
viewed unfavourably when seeking to enter markets in Istanbul.
France has reconfirmed its commitment to dialogue with Turkey and has
stressed that the passing of this law will in no way hinder talks
regarding accession to the EU, to which France has always been
relatively favourable.
EU spokesmen have spoken furiously against the law today. Quoted in
Libération, British Lib-Dem vice-president for the Turkish
delegation, Andrew Duff, said that it was a sad day for liberal ideas
in France, and that the Assemblée Nationale had rejected the
fundamental rights of freedom of speech. Voltaire must be turning in
his grave, he said.
While the EU is attempting to force Turkey to overturn its own laws
which “offend the Turkish identity” (and mentioning the Armenian
Genocide is a possible method of offending this identity), it feels
that the French law will hinder negotiations. Indeed, if Turkey is to
promote freedom of speech by overturning their own law, this law in
France hardly gives the Turks the best example of how to do so.
Jacques Chirac – the man who started the debate by declaring in
Yerevan that the Turks must acknowledge the genocide – has been
strangely quiet on the issue. Chirac has been strongly against
historic laws, throwing France’s colonial glorification out of the
law books, acknowledging the role the Harkis played for France in the
Algerian war and revising the pensions of colonial-origin soldiers
recently.
The majority of historians agree that the genocide of the Armenians
did indeed take place. Not just the majority, but almost every single
historian. To its credit, even Turkey has welcomed a debate on the
subject and university professors have acknowledged that the genocide
did take place. Between 1915 and 1917, over 1.5 million Armenians
were massacred as the Ottoman Empire drew to a bloody close.
The genocide took place. Of that there can be no doubt. Today’s law
may not be the most necessary law in the world, and it may not be the
most popular, but the EU are picking the wrong battle. While voices
against this law claim that it will hinder negotiations, it should
indeed help negotiations. Concerned only with its own negotiations
and business, the EU ignores the fact that holocaust denial is
illegal in most countries across Europe – why should denial of the
Armenian genocide cause such a problem?
This is not about freedom of speech – holocaust deniers or
revisionists frequently take their claims to the European Court using
the Freedom of Speech Law as the basis of their ultimate defence.
They are thrown out of court each time. Besides, what use is freedom
of speech when it is to deny the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians?
If Turkey has pretentions to EU accession, then the EU will be all
the better for its eventual inclusion. But the EU cannot and must not
accept Turkey unless it acknowledges the genocide. The law passed
today is not foolish, useless or even vain. It is necessary – and not
without precedent. Remember.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

L’histoire =?unknown?q?kidnapp=E9e?=

Le Devoir
L’histoire kidnappée
Serge Truffaut
Édition du vendredi 13 octobre 2006
Mots clés : Québec (province), Violence, Gouvernement, turquie,
union européenne, génocide arménien
Malgré l’opposition du gouvernement et surtout d’un nombre imposant
d’historiens renommés, les députés français, de gauche comme de
droite, ont adopté une loi punissant toute négation du génocide
arménien. Que des politiciens brident ainsi le travail
d’universitaires est affligeant à bien des égards.
Depuis que la Turquie a exprimé le souhait de rejoindre l’Union
européenne, ses dirigeants savent qu’ils ont une obligation : mener
à son terme le devoir de mémoire en ce qui concerne le génocide
perpétré contre les Arméniens. Pendant des mois et des mois, les
Turcs ont retardé toute analyse à la loupe des horreurs commises en
1915, allant jusqu’à voter une loi interdisant toute évocation
publique du drame. C’est d’ailleurs dans le cadre de cette loi que le
Prix Nobel de littérature 2006, Orhan Pamuk, a été constamment
ennuyé par les censeurs du régime.
Toujours est-il que la perspective de voir la porte de l’Europe rester
fermée en raison du refus de s’atteler à la reconnaissance du
génocide, refus considéré par beaucoup d’élus européens comme
un rejet des «valeurs communes» que partagent tous les membres de
l’UE, avait fini par convaincre le gouvernement turc d’agir autrement.
Ainsi, lorsque le premier ministre Stephen Harper a épinglé son
homologue turc sur cette question en mai dernier, ce dernier a
souligné qu’une initiative avait été prise consistant à
rassembler des historiens arméniens et turcs chargés de se pencher
sur le sujet. Bref, Ankara a convenu, péniblement il est vrai,
d’amorcer le travail de mémoire.
Antérieurement à cette friction canado-turque, des universitaires
français de renom, très agacés par la colonisation de l’espace
dévolu à l’histoire par les bien-pensants de l’Assemblée nationale
mais surtout par la foule des effets pervers qu’une avalanche de textes
législatifs avait entraînés, étaient montés aux barricades —
à juste titre — pour freiner ce que certains d’entre eux appellent la
tyrannie de la repentance.
Regroupés au sein d’une organisation au nom qui en dit long —
Liberté pour l’Histoire –, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Michel Winock,
Jean-Pierre Azéma, Marc Ferro et plusieurs autres avaient composé un
texte exigeant des législateurs qu’ils mettent un terme à une
entreprise qui sape les bases mêmes du métier d’historien et qu’ils
abrogent pas moins de quatre lois.
Dans leur pétition, ces intellectuels rappelaient que «l’histoire
n’est pas une religion […], l’histoire n’est pas la morale […],
l’histoire n’est pas l’esclave de l’actualité […], l’histoire n’est
pas la mémoire […], l’histoire n’est pas un objet juridique. Dans un
État libre, même animé des meilleures intentions, il n’appartient
ni au Parlement ni à l’autorité judiciaire de définir la
vérité historique. La politique de l’État, même animée des
meilleures intentions, n’est pas la politique de l’histoire». Il va de
soi qu’on ne saurait mieux dire.
Ce combat lancé par des personnes aussi respectées qu’admirées,
qui avait d’ailleurs convaincu aussi bien le président Jacques Chirac
que le socialiste Jack Lang que cette loi ajouterait aux restrictions
à la liberté d’expression que les lois précédentes avaient
provoquées, a donc été rejeté tant par les formations de droite
que celles de gauche.
À ce propos, il faut retenir qu’un important contingent de députés
de l’UMP, le parti de Chirac, a emprunté une position inverse à
celle défendue par ce dernier pour mieux obéir aux mots d’ordre de
l’agité de la politique française, soit Nicolas Sarkozy. On peut
parier qu’en agissant de la sorte, le candidat à l’Élysée tenait
à afficher une fois de plus sa distance avec Chirac mais également
avec le premier ministre Villepin tout en espérant récolter les
votes des gens qui ne veulent pas que la Turquie se lie à l’UE.
L’utilisation de l’histoire comme d’un procureur du temps présent a
toujours été un exercice périlleux.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

A world without taboos

The Guardian, UK
Oct 13 2006
A world without taboos
Is modern society as enlightened as it’s champions like to believe?
Ralf Dahrendorf
October 13, 2006 07:30 PM |
Not long ago, one might have concluded that, at least in Europe,
there were no taboos left. A process that had begun with the
Enlightenment had now reached the point at which “anything goes”.
Particularly in the arts, there were no apparent limits to showing
what even a generation ago would have been regarded as highly
offensive.
Two generations ago, most countries had censors who not only tried to
prevent younger people from seeing certain films, but who actually
banned books. From the 1960s, such proscriptions weakened until, in
the end, explicit sexuality, violence, blasphemy – while upsetting to
some people – were tolerated as a part of the enlightened world.
Or were they? Are there really no limits? Outside Europe, the
“anything goes” attitude was never fully accepted. And there were
limits in Europe, too. The historian David Irving is still in
detention in Austria for the crime of Holocaust denial. This is, to
be sure, a special case. The denial of a well-documented truth may
lead to new crimes. But is the answer to the old question, “What is
truth?” always so clear?
What exactly are we doing if we insist on Turkey’s acknowledgement
that the Armenian genocide did take place as a condition of its
membership in the European Union? Are we so sure of Darwin’s theories
of evolution that we should ban alternative notions of genesis from
schools?
Those concerned with freedom of speech have always wondered about its
limits. One such limit is the incitement to violence. The man who
gets up in a crowded theatre and shouts, “Fire!” when there is none
is guilty of what happens in the resulting stampede. But what if
there actually is a fire?
This is the context in which we may see the invasion of Islamic
taboos into the enlightened, mostly non-Islamic world. From the fatwa
on Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses to the killing of a nun in
Somalia in response to Pope Benedict’s Regensburg lecture and the
Berlin Opera’s cancellation of a performance of Mozart’s Idomeneo,
with its severed heads of religious founders, including Muhammad, we
have seen violence and intimidation used to defend a particular
religion’s taboos.
There are questions here that are not easily answered by civilised
defenders of the Enlightenment. Toleration and respect for people who
have their own beliefs are right and perhaps necessary to preserve an
enlightened world. But there is the other side to consider. Violent
responses to unwelcome views are never justified and cannot be
accepted. Those who argue that suicide bombers express understandable
grudges have themselves sold out their freedom. Self-censorship is
worse than censorship itself, because it sacrifices freedom
voluntarily.
This means that we have to defend Salman Rushdie and the Danish
cartoonists and the friends of Idomeneo , whether we like them or
not. If anyone does not like them, there are all the instruments of
public debate and of critical discourse that an enlightened community
has at its disposal. It is also true that we do not have to buy any
particular book or listen to an opera. What a poor world it would be
if anything that might offend any group could no longer be said! A
multicultural society that accepts every taboo of its diverse groups
would have little to talk about.
The kind of reaction we have seen recently to expressions of views
that are offensive to some does not bode well for the future of
liberty. It is as if a new wave of counter-enlightenment is sweeping
the world, with the most restrictive views dominating the scene.
Against such reactions, enlightened views must be reasserted
strongly. Defending the right of all people to say things even if one
detests their views is one of the first principles of liberty.
Thus, Idomeneo must be performed, and Salman Rushdie must be
published. Whether an editor publishes cartoons offensive to
believers in Muhammad (or Christ, for that matter) is a matter of
judgment, almost of taste. I might not do it, but I would
nevertheless defend the right of someone who decides otherwise. It is
debatable whether recent incidents of this kind require a “dialogue
between religions.” Public debate making clear cases one way or the
other seems more appropriate than conciliation. The gains of
enlightened discourse are too precious to be turned into negotiable
values. Defending those gains is the task that we now face.
Project Syndicate, 2006.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Paris Ready to Continue Dialogue with Turkey

PanARMENIAN.Net
Paris Ready to Continue Dialogue with Turkey
13.10.2006 13:24 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ After the French parliament backed a bill that would
punish those who deny the Armenian Genocide, which has caused a deal
of great tension between Turkey and France, Paris stated that it
wanted to continue its dialogue with Turkey. The French Foreign
Ministry has stated that Paris is willing to carry on the dialogue
with Turkey. Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said at a news
conference, `We are willing to carry on our dialogue, strong
cooperation and friendship with Turkey.’ Mattei also remarked that the
bill was `unnecessary and inappropriate.’ Also reiterating that a long
period of time awaited the bill’s passing, he noted he would speak
about the steps the government took at each phase of this long
process. Catherine Colonna, the minister in charge of European
affairs, spoke in the General Assembly hall before the vote on behalf
of the government and opposed the bill. Stating that the bill should
not be voted on, she said, `As the government, we are against the
bill’, reports zaman.com
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Majority Rates Genocide Denial as Crime

PanARMENIAN.Net
BBC: Majority Rates Genocide Denial as Crime
13.10.2006 13:33 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The website of the BBC Russian branch is conducting
a survey on the attitude to genocide as a crime against humanity.
52.2% out of 1500 voters consider the denial of genocide to be a
crime. 18.97% think it’s expression of freedom. 6.5% rate denial as
harmless delusion. 22.28% think it’s dangerous provocation. The BBC
says this survey is not official.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Dutch Armenians Thank French Parliamentarians

PanARMENIAN.Net
Dutch Armenians Thank French Parliamentarians
13.10.2006 13:41 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Federation of Armenian Organizations in the
Netherlands (FAON) is glad that the French National Assembly in large
majority has adopted a bill, which makes denial of the Armenian
Genocide a crime, says the press release received by PanARMENIAN.Net
from the FAON communication unit. Denying the holocaust has been a
crime in France since 1990.
`The Federation believes that with such a provision a dam is raised
against denial propaganda of the Turkish government, which is painful
for the Armenians. Also in the Netherlands such denial material is
spread, on internet sites, in writings and also in the public
debate. For victims and their surviving descendants it is cause for
problems each time. On basis of the discrimination prohibition in the
Criminal Code such remarks are in principle already a crime. It would
be a major improvement if the Dutch legislation would make it
explicitly clear that public expressions, where genocides are
systematically denied with the intention to hurt or discriminate
people, will be impossible in The Netherlands. The Federation hopes,
therefore, that the initiative bill submitted by
Mrs. Huizinga-Heringa, Member of Parliament of Christian Union
faction, which foresees the punishment of the genocide denial, will be
adopted by the House of Representatives. The Federation emphasizes for
sake of completeness that this bill is not directed to the denials in
itself, as it is suggested sometimes in the media, but to the
offending or discriminating aspects of genocide denials,’ the FAON
statement says.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian Community of Bulgaria Reveals Best Characteristic as Rule

PanARMENIAN.Net
Armenian Community of Bulgaria Reveals Its Best Characteristic as Rule
13.10.2006 14:57 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Armenian community of Bulgaria makes some 10
thousand people. They are all Bulgarian citizens, Bulgarian Ambassador
to Armenia Stefan Dimitrov said in an interview with PanARMENIAN.Net.
According to him, this is the data obtained during the latest census
in 2001. As much Armenian citizens having a permanent residence in
Bulgaria are engaged in small and middle business mostly. `There are
27 Armenian churches in all the cities where Armenians live. I should
stress that our churches experience no discrepancies. Besides, there
are schools in Plovdiv, Sofia, Bourgas and Varna, where the Armenian
language is taught. The Armenian language chair functions in the Sofia
University. I am glad that the Armenian community of Bulgaria reveals
its best characteristic as a rule,’ the Ambassador said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress