Author: Emil Lazarian

Ex-oil company chief charged in alleged Azerbaijan coup plot; lawyer cries
foul
The Associated Press
Published: September 29, 2006
BAKU, Azerbaijan A former oil executive has been charged in connection
with an alleged coup plot in Azerbaijan last year, his lawyer said
Friday.
Separately, an American lawyer for Rafiq Aliev said authorities had
violated Azerbaijani law and international human rights norms in the
case.
Aliev was charged Thursday with involvement in what Azerbaijani
officials say was a plot to overthrow President Ilham Aliev, said his
lawyer, Rafiq Quliyev.
Rafiq Aliev is former chief of the private oil company Azpetrol and
brother of former Economic Development Minister Farhad Aliev, one of a
dozen people arrested before parliamentary elections last November in
connection with the alleged plot.
The opposition says the arrests were part of an effort by the
government to manipulate the vote, which Western observers criticized
as flawed.
The Aliev brothers, who are not related to the president, were both
arrested last October, but Rafiq Aliev had not been charged with
participation in the plot. He had previously been charged on three
unrelated counts, including smuggling, Quliyev said.
Meanwhile, Farhad Aliev denounced accusations against him as unfounded
in a statement from prison released by his lawyers Friday, and said
that he had been subjected to blackmail and “psychological pressure”
while in custody.
Authorities accuse an opposition leader living in exile, Rasul
Guliyev, of masterminding the alleged coup plot.
The government of Ilham Aliev – like that of his late father, Geidar
Aliev, before him – has persecuted the opposition, breaking up
demonstrations, jailing its activists and directing state-run
television to smear its leaders.
Charles Both, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer for Farhad and Rafiq
Aliev, said the authorities have violated both Azerbaijani law and
international human rights norms.
“My clients’ right to have a fair and free and effective remedy
… has been violated. My clients’ right to freedom from
discrimination on political grounds has clearly been violated,” Both
told a news conference.
He said authorities had violated the presumption of innocence by
referring to the accused as criminals even though they have not been
tried.
Both said he arrived in the Azerbaijani capital, Baku, on Monday and
appealed to the prosecutor general’s office the same day with a
request tomeet with his clients, but received no response.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Posted on Thu, Sep. 28, 2006
Barbs fly in race for attorney general
ONE HOPEFUL CALLED `FLAKY,’ ANOTHER CALLED `EXTREME’
By Steve Geissinger
MediaNews
SACRAMENTO – Though Democrat Jerry Brown is better known, has more
money and enjoys a double-digit lead in the polls, a state Senate
Republican is making a serious bid to defeat him for the office of
state attorney general.
Sen. Chuck Poochigian of Fresno is warning that Brown is too “flaky”
for the job of the state’s top cop. The senator principally calls
Brown soft on crime and cites his opposition to the death penalty.
“Jerry Brown is the last person who should have the responsibility of
protecting California’s families as attorney general,” said
Poochigian spokesman Kevin Spillane.
But Brown, a former California governor and now Oakland’s mayor, is
saying Poochigian is “too extreme” for the state, considering his
opposition togun control and abortion rights.
Brown campaign strategist Ace Smith said Poochigian is “trying to
pass himself off as a moderate when in fact he’s an extremist.”
The campaign, so far, is being carried out primarily through
occasional appearances and an exchange of costly television ads.
The attorney general, a statewide elected officer, runs the Justice
Department and represents the people of California in civil and
criminal matters in the courts. The office also serves as legal
counsel to state officers, agencies, boards and commissions.
The attorney general further coordinates local and regional narcotics
enforcement efforts, participates in criminal investigations and
provides forensic services.
Also, the attorney general operates programs aimed at protecting
Californians from fraudulent, unfair and illegal activities that
victimize consumers or threaten public safety, and enforces laws that
safeguard the environment and natural resources.
The current attorney general, Democrat Bill Lockyer of Hayward, is
termed out and is running for treasurer against Republican Board of
Equalization member Claude Parrish.
Poochigian calls Brown “flaky,” pointing out that Brown’s own city,
Oakland, is suffering a high homicide rate and noting that Brown
vetoed a bill reinstating the death penalty in the late 1970s — only
to have the Legislature override his veto.
Brown responds that he formed a special police unit earlier this year,
among other things, in response to a public outcry over the soaring
homicide rate in Oakland.
The former governor said Poochigian supports high-powered sniper
rifles and opposes a woman’s right to abortion.
Poochigian responds that, at the time of the 2004 gun vote, the rifles
were legal in 49 other states and that he would not work to outlaw
abortion. Here are their positions on the environment, crime,
abortion and gun control:
ENVIRONMENT
Brown supports assertions that Poochigian opposed the 25 most
important environmental bills from 2003-05. Poochigian dismisses the
allegations as Sierra Club propaganda for Brown.
CRIME
Poochigian criticizes Brown for Oakland’s homicide rate and for
vetoing a bill reinstating the death penalty in the late 1970s. Brown
says Oakland’s overall serious crime rate has fallen and vows to
uphold the death penalty. Poochigian says the former governor has
personally protested against an execution, that he supports the
Prisoner’s Bill of Rights and that he opposed the Crime Victim’s Bill
of Rights.
ABORTION
Brown asserts Poochigian is opposed to abortion and would work to
outlaw it. Poochigian says Brown’s statement that he would work to
outlaw abortion is “categorically false.” However, Poochigian
acknowledges that he opposes abortion rights, except in cases of rape,
incest or when necessary to savethe life of the woman.
GUN CONTROL
Brown attacks Poochigian for his opposition as a state lawmaker to
banning 50-caliber sniper rifles. Poochigian responds that his 2004
vote came whenthe rifles were legal in 49 other states and counters
that, in 1976, Brown vetoed legislation providing front-line officers
with bulletproof vests.
Three other candidates also are running for the office: Jack Harrison
of the Peace and Freedom Party; Kenneth A. Weissman of the Libertarian
Party; and Michael S. Wyman of the Green Party.
© 2006 MercuryNews.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.

NEWS Press
27 septembre 2006
Amnesty International – Turquie : Un journaliste pris une nouvelle
fois pour cible
Amnesty International est consternée par l’annonce, le mardi 26
septembre, du nouveau procès intenté au journaliste Hrant Dink,
accusé du « délit d’insulte à l’identité turque » au titre de
l’article 301 du Code
pénal turc.
L’organisation considère que ces poursuites s’inscrivent dans le
cadre d’une politique de harcèlement visant un journaliste ayant
exercé son droit à la liberté d’expression – un droit que la Turquie,
en tant qu’État partie à la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des
droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales et au Pacte
international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, a l’obligation
légale de respecter.
L’annonce de ce nouveau procès intervient après la publication de
propos tenus par Hrant Dink à l’agence de presse Reuters. Le
journaliste aurait déclaré, parlant des massacres d’Arméniens sous
l’empire ottoman, «
Bien sûr, je dis que c’est un génocide, parce que le résultat
identifie ce que c’est et lui donne un nom. Vous pouvez voir qu’un
peuple qui a vécu sur ces terres pendant quatre mille ans a disparu.
» Amnesty International s’inquiète particulièrement de ce nouveau
procès, le troisième intenté à Hrant Dink au titre de l’article 301,
parce qu’il semble s’inscrire dans le cadre d’une politique de
harcèlement d’un auteur ayant exprimé de façon pacifique une opinion
discordante. De surcroît, Hrant Dink avait déjà été condamné à une
peine de six mois d’emprisonnement avec sursis en octobre 2005 pour «
délit d’insulte à l’identité turque » (condamnation confirmée en
appel en juillet 2006) et s’il était déclaré coupable du même délit
il serait emprisonné. Si tel était le cas, Amnesty International le
considérerait comme un prisonnier d’opinion.
Amnesty International considère ces poursuites particulièrement
décevantes après l’acquittement, accueilli avec soulagement il y a
quatre jours, d’un autre écrivain, la romancière Elif Safak, inculpée
au titre de l’article 301 pour des propos tenus par les personnages
fictifs de son roman, Le Btard d’Istanbul. L’organisation avait vu
dans cet acquittement un pas positif pour la liberté d’expression en
Turquie ; elle craint cependant qu’il n’ait constitué une exception
plutôt que la règle en la matière et qu’ait été démontrée une
nouvelle fois l’incapacité de certains magistrats turcs à appliquer
en droit national les règles du droit international, comme le prévoit
l’article 90 de la Constitution turque. L’organisation renouvelle son
appel en faveur de l’abrogation de l’article 301 dans son
intégralité, pour mettre fin à l’application arbitraire de cette loi
mal définie.
Enfin, Amnesty International note qu’à l’origine de ce procès il y
aurait eu une plainte déposée par des éléments de la société civile
opposés à l’abolition de l’article 301 ; des plaintes similaires,
visant à ce que des poursuites soient engagées, auraient été déposées
par le passé à plusieurs reprises, accompagnées de provocations et
manifestations parfois violentes lors des procès, créant une
atmosphère de menace dans la salle d’audience. L’organisation appelle
les autorités turques à s’assurer que toutes les mesures nécessaires
soient prises pour assurer la protection des accusés, de leurs
avocats et de leurs sympathisants dans de telles affaires et, bien
sûr, le bon déroulement de la justice. Pour plus d’informations
concernant les préoccupations d’Amnesty International à propos de
l’article 301, voir Turkey : Article 301 : How the law on «
denigrating Turkishness » is an insult to free expression.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICANEWS RELEASE
1 AMERICAN AVENUE
YEREVAN, ARMENIA
TELEPHONE (+374 10) 464700
FAX (+374 10) 464742
E-MAIL: [email protected]
September 29, 2006
ARMENIA AND U.S. FORMALLY INAUGURATE $235 MILLION RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
On September 29, 2006, the five year Millennium Challenge anti-poverty
development program agreed to earlier this year by the United States and
Armenia was officially inaugurated with an exchange of letters. In a
ceremony held at the Ministry of Finance and Economy, Finance Minister
Vardan Khachatryan and Alex Russin of the Millennium Challenge Corporation
exchanged letters which formally inaugurate the $235 million anti-poverty
program.
The Armenian Compact is designed to reduce rural poverty through a
sustainable increase in the economic performance of the agricultural sector.
Armenia plans to achieve this goal through a five-year program of strategic
investments in rural roads, irrigation infrastructure and technical and
financial assistance to improve the supply of water and to support farmers
and agribusinesses. The Program will directly impact approximately 750,000
people, or an estimated 75 percent of the rural population, and is expected
to reduce the rural poverty rate and boost annual incomes.
The Compact includes a $67 million project to rehabilitate up to 943
kilometers of rural roads, more than a third of Armenia’s proposed Lifeline
road network. When complete, the Lifeline road network will ensure that
every rural community has road access to markets, services, and the main
road network. Under the Compact, the Government of Armenia will be required
to commit additional resources for maintenance of the road network. The
Compact also includes a $146 million project to increase the productivity of
approximately 250,000 farm households (34% of which are headed by women)
through improved water supply, higher yields, higher-value crops, and a more
competitive agricultural sector.
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a U.S. government corporation
designed to work with some of the poorest countries in the world, is based
on the principle that aid is most effective when it reinforces good
governance, economic freedom, and investments in people that promote
economic growth and elimination of extreme poverty.

Agence France Presse — English
September 29, 2006 Friday
In Nakhchivan, ancient water technology meets modern need
Simon Ostrovsky
SHAHTAHTY, Azerbaijan, Sept 29 2006
With the Araxes river winding below, workers on a hilltop in
Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan exclave scrape debris from a clogged
waterway, reviving an ancient irrigation system invented by the
Persians 2,400 years ago.
Dressed in blue cover-alls, the men have been trained to maintain the
age-old Chehriz irrigation system to replace electric pumps to supply
the threadbare Azerbaijani town lower down the hillside.
Dozens of locals are now studying the technique after the last two
remaining experts came close to bringing its secrets to the grave.
International agencies are supporting the revival in the hope that
the water will breath life into the local economy and plug the stream
of locals fleeing this poverty-stricken corner of the Caucasus
Mountains.
“Nobody attended to the Chehriz in Soviet times,” said Sarat Das,
head of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in
Azerbaijan, who is pushing the technique. “Mechanization replaced the
traditional systems,” he said.
But the mechanized system of electric pumps was left high and dry
when a war with neighbour Armenia in the early 1990s cut off access
to the cheap electricity from that country’s nuclear power plant.
A tiny mountainous strip of land sandwiched between Armenia and Iran,
Nakhchivan is cut off completely from the rest of Azerbaijan, and
following the war, lost access to the Armenian capital Yerevan, a
mere 50 kilometers (30 miles) from its borders.
Unable to pay the higher prices for electricity imported from other
countries, the locals looked to the region’s 400 or so crumbling
Chehriz to turn their dusty fields green.
A long hand-made tunnel dug using a series of man-holes along a
sloping water table, the Chehriz requires no outside power source to
function.
Groundwater drains into a brick tunnel before being channeled into
the open in a village or a field where it can further be distributed
using a series of shallow canals.
Vilayat Ibrahimov, a community leader in the village of Yurdchu said
farmers used a rotation to share the Chehriz, blocking off one canal
to divert water to another in accordance to a schedule.
“Those fields down there, they were unusable a few years ago,” said
Ibrahimov of a 400-year-old Chehriz that was recently re-opened to
the delight of locals.
Before the communists came to power there were 16 functioning Chehriz
in Yurdchu. Now there is one, but “there’s enough water for
everyone,” he said.
The water is not pressurized, so it can’t be used to fill pipes and
pour out of faucets, but for Nakhchivan, where most villagers have
never had running water inside their homes, it is a significant
improvement.
Some 14 Chehriz have so far been rehabilitated under a scheme in
which communities are required to foot part of the bill for
reconstruction, according to the IOM, which is backing the project.
The rest is paid by the IOM and the Swiss Development and Cooperation
Agency.
Devoid of any significant vegetation, the region saw its population
stream across the borders to Turkey and Iran when the Iron Curtain
was lifted.
Nobody is certain how many people have left, the figures are a
closely guarded secret in the local administration, but the streets
of the regional capital Nakhchivan are all but empty.
The IMO identified a lack of water in the region’s villages as one of
the hardships compelling farmers to abandon their fields.
“The major problem was water and that the Chehriz was dry,” prompting
people to leave the villages, Das said of the town where IOM fixed
its first Chehriz.
In championing the Chehriz, the IOM has saved the age-old technology
from the brink of extinction by tapping the knowledge of two Chan
Chans or Chehriz technicians, a 65-year-old and a 72-year-old, who
remembered the skills from their youth.
They have since trained 100 more young men and the project has spread
to other parts of Azerbaijan, with some of the IOM-employed Chan
Chans rebuilding Chehriz in their spare time.
“This skill which could have died with these two people can be
retained,” he said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AZG Armenian Daily #186, 30/09/2006
World
DAY OF GERMANY’S UNIFICATION TO BE HELD
“Unification, Right, Freedom.” This is the main ideology that the
German people follow since 19th century, even after the World War II,
when the country was split in two parts. Only in the October of 1990,
the German issue was finally settled, the Western and the Eastern
Germanies united. For already 16 years, the Federal Republic of
Germany celebrates the Day of Germany’s Unification on October
2-3. This year the center of the festive celebration will be Kill. In
this connection, Angela Merkel, chancellor of FRG, stated that she is
happy that the festive celebration on the unification day will be held
in Kill for the first time. The representative of Germany’s 16 states,
many political figures and foreign guests will participate in the
celebration arrangements.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AZG Armenian Daily #186, 30/09/2006

Home
ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO SHAPE OPPOSITION UNION
According to the statement adopted by 15 opposition parties, the
Armenian people face the danger of losing its state, as all the
spheres are becoming criminal in Armenia and Ra citizens are not
protected in their own country. “Innocent people become victims of
frequent cases. This criminal actions are obviously allowed by Robert
Kocharian and Serge Sargsian couple,” the opposition figures came to
such a conclusion at yesterday’s meeting. Aram Karapetian, leader of
“New Times” party, told the journalists that they will take drastic
measures, including public hearings, round tables, to fight the
criminal existing in the republic. He added that the representatives
of the abovementioned parties’ youth branches will also initiate such
meetings. They will gather on October 5 to define their further
actions.
By Tamar Minasian
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PanARMENIAN.Net
Struggle for Peace Most Serious Challenge Armenia Should Overcome
30.09.2006 15:24 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ `I want to voice assurance in Armenia’s future,’
French President Jacques Chirac said during the opening ceremony of
the Square of France in Yerevan. `I am sure of capabilities of
Armenia, a young republic of an ancient nation, which shares with us
the adherence to human rights advocacy. I am sure of the Armenian
youth, who are inspired by a common urge towards peace and freedom. I
am sure of the ability of you republic to overcome the economic
challenges and become attractive for investments. I am sure of
Armenia’s ability to struggle for peace. This is the most serious
challenge Armenia should overcome, since only a fair and lasting peace
will allow your people to make dreams true.
I do believe in peace. The times, when people thought that conflicts
can resolved by force, have passed. Only a mutual dialogue will open
the way to the future. Today the greatest is the one who achieves
peace. I want this square to be the square of peace.
Several hours later we will gather at the Republic Square to see the
concert of Charles Aznavour, the Great French and the Great Armenian.
Can we dream of a better event to mark the start of the Year of
Armenia in France, the symbol of our friendship, our past, present and
future?’ the French President said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Explaining the Unexplainable: The Terminology Employed by the Armenian
Media when Referring to 1915(1)
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
September 23, 2006
What terminology have Armenians employed to describe the greatest
tragedy in their history? When was the term Tseghasbanutyun (Genocide)
incorporated into their discourse? I will try to answer these
questions by looking at the April 24 editorials in three
Armenian-language dailies’Aztag (Factor), Zartonk (Awakening), and
Ararad.
These newspapers, all published in Beirut, express the views of the
three Armenian political parties that survived in the Diaspora’the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) or the Tashnags, the Social
Democratic Hunchagian Party, and the Democratic Liberal Party or the
Ramgavars, respectively. Aztag has been published, without any
significant interruption, since 1927; Ararad and Zartonk, since
1937(2).
Survivors of the Armenian Genocide used a number of terms to refer to
the destruction of their people in the Ottoman Empire. In the
editorials under study, the term most commonly and consistently used
from the 1920s to the present is Yeghern (Crime/Catastrophe), or
variants like Medz Yeghern (Great Crime) and Abrilian Yeghern (the
April Crime). Other terms include Hayasbanutyun (Armenocide), Medz
Voghperkutyun (Great Tragedy), Medz Vogchagez (Great Holocaust), Medz
Nahadagutyun (Great Martyrdom), Aghed (Catastrophe), Medz Nakhjir and
Medz Sbant (both, Great Massacre), Medz Potorig (Great Storm), Sev
Vojir (Black Crime) and, after 1948, Tseghasbanutyun (Genocide), or
variants like Haygagan Tseghasbanutyun and Hayots Tseghasbanutyun
(both, Armenian Genocide).
Yeghern was the word most frequently used when referring to the
destruction of the Armenians before the term `genocide’ was coined by
Raphael Lemkin in 1944 and incorporated into the 1948 UN Genocide
Convention. Even after that, Yeghern maintained its prominence for a
number of decades.
It was only in the late 1980s and early 1990s that the expression
Haygagan Tseghasbanutyun started appearing more frequently than the
term ‘Yeghern’ in the editorials under study and, generally, in other
related articles in Armenian-language newspapers and publications4.
Hayasbanutyun was used after the Lebanese jurist Moussa Prince
published his book Un génocide impuni: L’Arménocide
(Unpunished genocide: Armenocide) in 1967(5). In the next few years,
more than one Armenian translation of this book appeared as a book and
as a serial in Ararad (6).
>From 1978 to 1982, the term Hayasbanutyun was employed at least once
in every April 24 editorial in Aztag. However, it rarely appeared in
the other newspapers under study.
The term Tseghasbanutyun appeared for the first time in Aztag on April
25, 1948, a few months before the UN General Assembly approved the
`Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’
in December of that year. Titled `Tseghasbanutyun,’ the editorial
begins with the following question in reference to the Jewish
Holocaust (7):
`Was another earth-shaking storm necessary, so that men would learn
the word Tseghasbanutyun (Genocide)? ¦The attempt to exterminate
the Armenians en masse’genocide’only served the purpose of filling the
pages of books and giving brilliant speeches, while the other [attempt
of extermination] immediately resulted in a logical ending: trials and
hanging.’ (Aztag, 1948)
The next time the term was used in Aztag was in an editorial
condemning the disinterest of the West over the attempted decimation
of the Armenians (8) was even more evident the next time the term
appeared in an Aztag editorial:
`A second World War was needed so that the peoples of the West would
feel on their own flesh what it means to plot a crime against a nation
and would condemn it by employing the term genocide’ (Aztag, 1950).
Two years later, another April 24 editorial stated: `The condemnation
of the crime of genocide in speeches and on paper is not enough’
(Aztag, 1952). In this editorial, the term tseghasban (9) (perpetrator
of genocide) is also employed in reference to the Turks.
In the following years, and leading up to the 50th anniversary of the
Yeghern in 1965, the term Tseghasbanutyun was not used in the
editorials of Aztag. However, it was mentioned, albeit sporadically,
in other articles dealing with the issue published in the same
newspaper.(10)
Zartonk first employed the term Tseghasbanutyun in its April 24
editorial in 1954 and it continued to use it in subsequent years:(11)
`The Armenian fatherland was depopulated as a result of the horrible
crime of Genocide that was unleashed on the 24 of April’ (Zartonk,
1954); no one listened to the few great humanists who were `condemning
barbarity and genocide’ (Zartonk, 1955); `The German-Austrian
whore-like politics turned a blind eye to this ghastly genocide’
(Zartonk, 1956); `Forty-five years after the Medz Yeghern started,
today, while we deeply mourn the martyrdom of our fathers and mothers,
brothers and sisters, we also state with endless joy that the
genocidal Turk has failed in his plan¦We should vow to do
everything to crown our SACRED CAUSE [Emphasis by Zartonk] with
success, so that no [other] Talaat (12) will ever again even
contemplate solving `the Armenian issue’ through violent genocide’
(Zartonk, 1960); `The Ittihadist leaders or the Ottoman ministers had
already prepared the ground for the unprecedented genocide’ (Zartonk,
1964), etc.
After 1965, the term Tseghasbanutyun was gradually incorporated into
the standard lexicon of the three newspapers under study and was used
interchangeably with other terms when referring to the events of 1915.
In 1965, stressing the importance of the 50th anniversary of the
Genocide, the ARF Central Committee in Lebanon signed a declaration in
Aztag titled `Our Word,’ which appeared in lieu of an editorial. In
this declaration, the term Yeghern was used five times, while
Tseghasbanutyun was used only twice. (13)
In 1966, in a move atypical for the period before the 1990s, an
editorial titled `Tseghasbanutyun,’ used the term Tseghasbanutyun
seven times (three in reference to the UN Genocide Convention),
tseghasban Turk (the genocidal Turk) once, and Yeghern not at all.
Ararad first used the term Tseghasbanutyun in an April 24 editorial in
1966. Thereafter, the term appeared with some regularity in the
newspaper’s April 24 editorials: `The Diaspora Armenians have an
immensely important role to play in acquiring condemnation for the
genocide of the Turk’ (Ararad, 1966); `Even the wildest imagination
would not be able to portray the genocide committed against us’
(Ararad, 1967); `The genocide committed against our people is also a
crime against humanity’ (Ararad, 1968); `56 years have passed from the
genocide and the pillaging of Western Armenia’ (Ararad, 1971), etc.
The expression Haygagan Tseghasbanutyun was not employed at this
juncture. Typically, when referring to the events of 1915-16, the
expressions used were `the genocide of 1915,’ `The Turkish genocide,’
and `the genocide committed against the Armenians.’ It is only in the
1980s that Haygagan Tseghasbanutyun becomes the most frequently
applied expression when referring to 1915.
Deniers of the Armenian Genocide argue that the Armenians themselves
never referred to 1915 as `genocide’ before the 1980s. As this study
demonstrates, their argument, popular in the Turkish media and
academic circles, does not stand. While it is true that the Armenians
have employed a number of terms to refer to the annihilation of their
people, shortly after the term `genocide’ was coined by Raphael Lemkin
and even before the UN Genocide Convention was approved, the Armenians
realized that the term was applicable to the horrors their people
experienced just a few decades earlier.
Of course, they were not alone in this realization. Lemkin himself
referred to 1915 as `genocide’ and stated that it paved the way to the
unanimous adoption of the Genocide Convention by the UN General
Assembly in 1948. `One million Armenians died, but a law against the
murder of peoples was written with the ink of their blood and the
spirit of their sufferings,’ wrote Lemkin in an exclusive article for
the Hairenik Weekly in 1959.
Endnotes
1 This article is an excerpt from a research paper presented at the
fourth Workshop on Armenian-Turkish Scholarship, held at New York
University in May 2006. I am indebted to Dr. Ara Sanjian for his
guidance and invaluable advice from the first day I embarked on my
research on issues related to the Yeghern and the Armenian media. I
also thank Dr. Asbed Kotchikian and Dr. Rania Masri for reading the
drafts of the paper upon which this article is based.
2 The Tashnag Aztag was published twice a week until 1930, and then,
three times a week until 1932, when it became a daily publication. The
newspaper was initially the private property of Haig Balian, but it
expressed the views of the ARF until June 1965, when it formally
became the official organ of the ARF Central Committee of Lebanon. The
Hunchagian Ararad became a weekly in June 2001.
Aztag, Zartonk and Ararad are not the only daily newspapers that have
mirrored opinions of the Lebanese-Armenian community. A fourth daily,
the independent Ayk, published by Tigran Tospat, appeared from
1953-75. Because of constraints on space and time, this study does not
deal with Ayk’s editorials on Armenian Martyrs’ Commemoration Day.
3 In the 1990 editorial, Yeghern appeared only once in Aztag, while
Tseghasbanutyun was employed three times. In the 1997 editorial, for
example, Zartonk employed the term tseghasban 10 times; tseghasbanagan
(genocidal), twice; and Tseghasbanutyun, three times. Yeghern was not
employed. In the 2005 editorial, the term Tseghasbanutyun appeared 11
times in Aztag. It should be noted that even in the 1980s and 1990s,
one does encounter editorials where the term Tseghasbanutyun was not
the word of choice when referring to 1915 (see, for example, Aztag,
1991).
4 It is interesting to note here that the first ever book with the
word genocide (as applied to the Armenians) in the title was published
in 1948. It was Josef Guttmann’s 19-page booklet, The Beginnings of
Genocide: A Brief Account of the Armenian Massacres in World War I
(New York: Armenian National Council of America, 1948). This was the
English translation of an article originally published in Yiddish in
Yivo bleter, the Journal of the Yiddish Scientific Institute, v. 28,
no. 2, under the title `Di shhite oyf Armener hit draysik yor tsurik.’
Thereafter, we have to wait until 1965 for Father Jean
Mécérian’s Le génocide du peuple arménien:
le sort de la population arménienne de l’Empire ottoman, de la
Constitution ottomane au Traité de Lausanne, 1908-1923 (Beirut:
Impr. Catholique, 1965). There was one Armenian title published in
Beirut with the word Tseghasbanutyun in 1959: Tseghasbanutyune
khorhrtayin mioutenen ners: usumnasirutyun zankvadzayin sbanutyants
`(Genocide in the Sovet Union: A Study on the [Committed] Mass
Murders) but that was about the USSR, the translation of a book
produced by Institut zur Erforschung der UdSSR in 1958. (This research
was carried out through WorldCat.)
5 The term `Armenocide’ is also used in the title of The Genocide of
the Armenians by Turks, the Turkish Armenocide, Documentary series,
v. 1: The Memoirs of Naim Bey: Turkish Official Documents Relating to
the Deportations and Massacres of Armenians ([Newton Square, Pa.]:
Armenian Historical Research Association, 1964).
6 One of the translators is Dikran Vosgouny, an editor of Aztag in
that period.
7 The Holocaust and other genocides are seldom mentioned in April 24
editorials. The Rwandan Genocide, for instance, is mentioned in Aztag
in 2004, in the context of the 10th anniversary commemoration of that
genocide.
8 In the editorials, Western powers are frequently blamed for the
suffering of the Armenians. Germany is considered an accomplice to
what befell the Armenians. Britain, France and the U.S. are blamed for
being bystanders and, prior to that, doing little to fulfill their
promises to the Armenians suffering under the Ottoman rule.
9 As this paper demonstrates, for decades tseghasban remains an
adjective inseparable from `the Turk’ in the Armenian newspapers. It
is worth nothing that Haygazn Ghazarian’s book on the Armenian
Genocide, published in Beirut in 1968, is titled Tseghasban Turke.
10 See, for example, H.K. Barsalian’s `The God-Chosen Armenian’ on
page 2 of the April 23 1959 issue, and the series of articles by
Yer[vant] Khatanasian titled `Genocide and the Armenian Cause’ in
April 1964.
11 It should be noted here that the editor of Zartonk, Kersam
Aharonian, played an instrumental role in making the Armenian Genocide
a central cause in Lebanon in the 1960s. The 1,116-page book,
Hushamadyan Medz Yegherni, which he edited in 1965, was regarded as
the most comprehensive Armenian-language book on the topic of Yeghern
published until then.
12 Minister of the Interior Talaat Pasha, the leading figure of the
triumvirate that came to power in 1913 in the Ottoman Empire and a
prime architect of the Armenian Genocide, is regarded by the
editorials throughout the entire period under study as the
personification of genocidal evil. His name is often cited together
with the name of Soghomon Tehlirian, who assassinated Talaat on March
14, 1921.
13 In the resolution adopted by the 18th ARF General Meeting in 1963,
the term Tseghasbanutyun was employed for the first time in the line
of successive General Meeting resolutions.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Just out of Jurisdictional Reach: The Rafik Hariri Case Eludes the ICC
By Kristen Heim
The Armenian Weekly
September 23, 2006
`We should rule out the establishment of future ad hoc tribunals similar to
those for the former Yugoslavia, or for Rwanda. I think this is no longer an
option, as they are too expensive, [the] trials are too lengthy, and they
will be superfluous because of [the presence] of the International Criminal
Court.’
-Antonio Cassese(1)
Cassese’s words echo the general consensus on the dwindling role of ad hoc
tribunals today. With the signing of the Rome Statue in 1998, the
international community was able to celebrate the long-awaited establishment
of an international judicial body capable of bringing the world’s most
heinous crimes to justice. Today, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has
gained a solid foothold in trans-sovereign sanctioning, with three
large-scale conflicts on its agenda (Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and Darfur) and 130 signatories to its Statute. After more than a
century of efforts, the international community has felt the inclination – an
entitlement, even – to place its faith in this newfound instrument.
And rightly so. Ad hoc tribunals, like the International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda (ICTR), have been criticized for taking from the international
community almost as dearly as they have given. There has been heated debate
over their limited contribution to local judicial systems, from which they
are derived, as well as over the cost to the already modest UN budget. In
addition, the geographical distance from the crime scenes remains a problem:
evidence and witnesses are difficult to obtain, judges and prosecutors are
seen as being out of touch with local cultural norms, and victims of the
crimes are left detached from the cathartic effects of a local trial(2). As
a result of these concerns and in light of the establishment of the ICC,
ad-hoc tribunals have been deemed obsolete alternatives in the pursuit of
international justice.
Yet, with precedents now set in Cambodia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and East
Timor, a new form of tribunal, the so-called `hybrid tribunal,’ has emerged
on the scene. Although sustained by local resources and the personnel of its
national judicial systems, hybrid tribunals combine both national and
international staff and resources(3) seeking to remedy some of the
contentious aspects of purely ad-hoc tribunals.
Despite these efforts, however, internationalized tribunals continue to be a
financial burden, and their internationalized nature raises new concerns
over the maintenance of consistent international legal procedures and
interpretation(4).
Plans to establish yet another hybrid tribunal to try those responsible for
the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and
calls for the establishment of more tribunals of the same nature(5), leads
one to ask why such situations are not being referred to the body originally
established for this very purpose – the ICC.
To get to the heart of the matter, the court’s reach must be systematically
taken into account through a review of ratione loci and personae(6), ratione
temporis(7), the principle of complimentarity(8) and ratione materiae(9).
At first glance, it seems all too apparent that the Hariri case falls
outside the scope of ICC jurisdiction. While states that have ratified the
Rome Statute agree to refer crimes committed on their soil or by their
nationals to the ICC, neither Lebanon nor Syria – states with jurisdiction
over the main suspects in the Hariri assassination – have done so. Vital to
this matter is the authority entrusted to the UN Security Council; that is,
if it deems a matter to be a `threat to international peace and security,’
it may still refer it to the ICC under the UN chapter VII mandate,
regardless of its commitment to the Rome Treaty(10). Thus, since the
Security Council has the last word in matters of rationae loci and rationae
personae, the Hariri case could have easily been referred to the ICC.
Similar conclusions can be reached when looking at the issue of
complimentarity. While the ICC has limited itself to involvement in matters
in which the state in question is unwilling or unable to bring the crime to
justice, its stance on this, too, remains somewhat flexible: The
interpretation and application of the principle of complimentarity rests
upon the digression of the Court on a case by case basis(11). Thus, the
willingness of the Lebanese government to try the Hariri case is unlikely to
be disputed. Should the ICC, however, deem the Lebanese judiciary unable to
process the case on its own, the Court could again declare it within its
jurisdictional reach(12).
Jurisdictional constraints stemming from the third criteria – ratione
temporis – are largely inapplicable to the Lebanese tribunal. Because the
assassination occurred in 2004, the case remains well within the authority
of the ICC. Concerns may have arisen only if the host state, like others
before it, had pushed for an extension of this date in order to `put events
in historical perspective,’ so as to include events occurring before July 1,
2002(13).
Since the afore-mentioned jurisdictional limitations of the Court do not
provide a convincing argument for the ICC’s lack of involvement in the
Hariri case, we turn our attention to ratione materiae – the true culprit, as
it were. According to Article 5 of the Rome Statute, only crimes
encompassing genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and (pending an
approved definition) crimes of aggression are considered by the Court. Acts
of terrorism, as the Hariri assassination has been defined, are not included
in the Statute for fear that the court would be `overburdened with
apparently less important cases(14).’ Thus, the assassination will not be
tried by the ICC, but rather by a hybrid tribunal – the consequences and
merits of which remain to be seen.
If one conclusion can be drawn from this brief inquiry, however, it is the
continued relevance of the tribunal, in general terms, even in the shadow of
the ICC. Indeed, imperfect institutions that they may be, superfluous they
most certainly are not.
Kristen Heim is a graduate student of international politics and peace at
the Eberhard-Karls University in Tuebingen, Germany. She is currently
researching the political implications of the establishment of the Hariri
Tribunal in Lebanon.
Endnotes
1 Cassese, 12: professor of international law of Florence University and
former president of the ICTY
2 Cassese, book preface: evidence and witnesses are most easily obtained and
accessed locally
3 Shraga, 28: including national and international judges, prosecutors, and
administrative staff
4 Condorelli, Boutruche, 432-433: for details on how the case of Cambodia
challenged this consistency
5 various news sources have reported on a push for the establishment of a
tribunal to try Israel for alledged war crimes and crimes against humanity
in the recent war in Lebanon
6 Where the Court presides jurisdiction only over those parties to the Rome
Statute in which those persons who are either nationals (personae) of a
State Party to the Statute or where the crimes have occurred on the
territory(loci) of a State Party of the Statute. See Benzing, Bergsmo, 408
7 Where the Court may only try cases committed after 1 July 2002. See
Benzing, Bergsmo, 408
8 Where the Court may only intervene in cases where states are unable or
unwilling to do so. Benzing, Bergsmo, 408
9 Where the Court may only adjudicate over the most serious crimes, Benzing,
Bergsmo, 408
10 Colitti, 421
11 Benzing, Bergsmo, 413-414: interpretation is made possible through
article 17 of the Statute
12 here, the `ability’ to adjudicate would most likely be based upon
security concerns
13 Shraga, 28: with the exception of the ICTY, all governments have
requested a termporal extentions
14 Colitti, 422
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress