Author: Frangulian Shushan

WILL TURKEY OFFICIALLY APOLOGIZE FOR THE ‘GREAT CATASTROPHE’?
By Cenap Cakmak

Today’s Zaman
Dec 29 2008
Turkey

As expected, the apology campaign initiated by a group of Turkish
intellectuals who criticized the indifference and injustice to the
massacres and sufferings of Armenian people in the events that took
place in Ottoman territories in 1915 has sparked differing reactions.

While some endorsed the declaration made available online for public
participation, others, including Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, criticized the initiative, arguing that there was nothing
to apologize for. Some groups in the Armenian diaspora expressed
cautious optimism and satisfaction with the declaration, which should
be discussed or considered with reference to freedom of expression
given that this is a civilian initiative.

But it is obvious that this does not represent Turkey’s official stance
because neither the government nor Parliament implies that there will
be such action taken by the establishment. Besides, state institutions
have so far made public their open opposition to the campaign. In
this case, the question is whether this civilian initiative will be
transformed into an official policy of Turkey vis-a-vis the Armenian
genocide issue; this question is particularly relevant because this
is actually what the Armenian diaspora has been looking for.

The answer to this question is simple and clear: Such a move seems to
be out of the question in the current political context. Regardless of
the international environment and accompanying pressures as well as
the probable profits and gains associated with an official apology,
Turkey will not comply with these demands considering the gravity
and serious repercussions of accepting the Armenian claims.

There are at least two major reasons for Turkey not to proceed with
offering an apology for the "Great Catastrophe." Above all, the
Armenian genocide issue has turned into a political clash between
Turkey and the Armenian diaspora; an apology will implicitly mean
Turkey’s acceptance of defeat in this clash. Secondly, at a time
when relations with Armenia have become relatively smooth, granting
an apology would be a last resort for Turkish foreign policy makers.

Above all, it should be noted that an apology alone will not satisfy
the demands of the Armenian diaspora. What Armenians are looking
for is an apology accompanied by an open acknowledgement by which
Turkish authorities admit that Ottoman authorities committed the
crime of genocide against the Armenian population in the early 20th
century. There is no single guarantee or assurance indicating that
further material demands will not follow such an acknowledgement and
apology. Even though some Armenians declared that what they want from
Turkey is a mere apology and an open acknowledgement of the commission
of an Armenian genocide, those who have openly promoted the Armenian
genocide claims have not so far given any assurance that they will
not claim material remedies or reparations for the alleged genocide.

Besides, even if they offer such an assurance, Turkey’s
acknowledgement of the genocide claims will not be an ordinary
decision that will culminate in an apology and acceptance with mild
repercussions. Acknowledgement of the commission of the crime of
genocide against Armenians will inevitably entail reparations and
material compensations to be made to the victims or their legal
inheritors. Such an option will not be acceptable to Turkish foreign
policy-makers.

More importantly, as a greater number of states have promulgated bills
and enacted laws recognizing the alleged Armenian genocide and making
its denial a punishable offense, the issue has become more politicized
and internationalized; in such an environment, the problem has become
even more crucial for Turkish foreign policy. For this reason, the
issue of forcing Turkey to accept the Armenian genocide, a key goal
that has been promoted and emphasized by the diaspora, is a matter of
image and prestige for Turkish foreign policy-makers. In other words,
this issue has turned into an element of political clash between
Turkey and the Armenian diaspora. In a sense, they are rivals over this
issue; Turkey’s apology and acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide
claims would mean that Turkey accepts defeat in this struggle. For
this reason, Turkey will make an official and formal apology for the
"Great Catastrophe" only if it is left with no other choice.

In such an environment where the uncompromising stance of the Armenian
diaspora, which excludes opportunities for dialogue with Turkey as a
viable option, is visibly prevalent, Turkey’s official apology will be
out of the question. Of course, Turkish policy-makers will make some
efforts to improve bilateral relations between Turkey and Armenia,
but in such cases, it will strive to hold the initiative. Conversely,
an apology, which will actually mean acceptance and endorsement of the
claims, voiced within the Armenian genocide campaign, promoted and
sponsored mostly by the Armenian diaspora, will not be a humanistic
move; rather, it will be a political step that will undermine Turkey’s
prestige and image.

For this reason, even though the emphasis in the recent civilian
initiative is mostly humanistic and free of political considerations,
Turkey’s official apology will never bear such meaning. Turkey’s
official and formal apology will mean at least partial acknowledgement
and endorsement of Armenian genocide claims, and this will cause
serious political troubles for Turkey. This, of course, does not
necessarily mean that Turkey can never take some humane steps, but
such steps will not include a formal apology.

>From one perspective, this actually suggests that what makes a formal
apology by Turkey out of the question and an impossible choice is
the attempts by the Armenian diaspora to politicize the issue. An
apology, which will mean submission to the demands of the diaspora,
which will be held responsible for taking the issue to such extreme and
sensitive dimensions, will not be acceptable to Turkey for political
reasons. Considering the recent improvement and progress in dialogue
attempts with the Armenian administration, it becomes evident that
Turkey will never take the option of offering a formal apology into
account in an environment where its options will likely proliferate
and be diversified.

*Dr. Cenap Cakmak is an instructor at Mugla University and a senior
researcher at the Wise Men Center for Strategic Research (BÄ°LGESAM).

–Boundary_(ID_EdEaetSNRve IB6hD01o3Jw)–

ARMENIAN GOVERNMENT SIGNS AGREEMENT WITH ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

RIA OREANDA
Dec 26 2008
Russia

Yerevan. OREANDA-NEWS . On 26 December 2008 was announced, that the
RA Minister of Economy Nerses Yeritsyan and RA Minister of Transport
and Communication Gurgen Sargsyan n behalf of the Government of
Armenia signed an agreement with Asian Development Bank on provision
of technical assistance to the Government of Armenia in an amount
not exceeding the equivalent of US USD 1,000,000 for preparing the
North-South Road Corridors Development Program.

The Technical Assistance of USD 1,000,000 will be provided by ADB on
a grant basis by the Technical Assistance Special Fund. The Ministry
of Transport and Communication is to serve as the Executing Agency
for the Technical Assistance.

The suggestion of Armenian side was also included in Technical
Assistance program: such as take into the framework of ten-year action
plan the possibility of railroad and high way construction in the
Southern part of the North-South Road Corridors.

MORE DISCOVERIES IN CHEMISTRY AND MECHANICS

Panorama.am
20:42 23/12/2008

In 2008 the Agency of Intellectual Property of the Ministry of
Economy received 232 applications of discoveries and useful models,
said the head of the department of discoveries and useful models
Peryan Avetisyan to Panorama.am.

He said that 10 of those 232 were foreign citizens, and the rest
Armenians. This year more than 200 discoveries were certified and the
rest are being investigated. According to him the discoveries of this
year were in Chemistry and Mechanics.

Compared with the previous year, 147 applications were received and
141 were national scientists and 6 foreigners.

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN POLICY AND SECURITY ISSUES ESTABLISHED IN NAGORNO KARABAKH

armradio.am
25.12.2008 14:36

A number of public figures of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic established
a Council on Foreign Policy and Security Issues. As a main priority
the Council has an objective to contribute to the mobilization of the
existing intellectual potential and making it serve for the solution
of the urgent issues facing Artsakh, work out practical suggestions
for the interested state and non-state structures through public
discussions on urgent issues.

The Council will periodically prepare analytical materials, publish
comments and expert evaluations.

Members of the Council have agreed to work in line with national
interests.

The Council will be headed by the ex-Foreign Minister of NKR,
Masis Mailyan.

According to him, members of the Council will include not only the
specialists of Artsakh, but also the friends of Artsakh who work
outside the borders of the newly independent country.

Masis Mailyan expressed confidence that the activity of the Public
Council will contribute to the intensification of the activity of both
government agencies of Karabakh and separate republican structures.

According to the member of the Council, the activity of the newly
established public structure will enrich the foreign policy agenda with
prospective ideas and initiatives. The participation of the public
in the formation of the foreign policy strategy will contribute to
the adoption of decisions targeted at the defense of NAR national
interests.

PRESS RELEASE
Massachusetts Bay Community College
Wellesley Hills Campus
Lisa M. Cascio, Director of Communications and Public Affairs
50 Oakland Street Room 222
Wellesley Hills, Mass. 02481-5307
781.239.3124 (phone)
781.239.3110 (fax)
<;

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

MASSBAY TRUSTEE BOB SEMONIAN ATTENDS ACCT LEADERSHIP CONGRESS

Wellesley Hills, Mass. – Massachusetts Bay Community College (MassBay)
Trustee Bob Semonian was one of more than 2,000 community college
trustees, presidents, and leaders who participated in the 29th Annual
Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT) Leadership Congress at
the Marriott Marquis Times Square in New York City from October 29
through November 1.

Semonian, a Watertown native, and the other attendees were able to
attend many sessions on best practices for colleges, fundamental and
advanced trustee training, a special town hall meeting focusing on the
critical role that community colleges play in combating poverty through
educational opportunities while also addressing social issues including
the growing economic gap, the digital divide, and the growing need for
remedial education.

In his current role as trustee, Semonian, one of the owners of the
Improper Bostonian magazine, serves on the Presidential Evaluation
Committee and the Nominating Committee. He is also the liaison to the
Foundation Board. In the attached photo, he is pictured along with
College Board President and Former Governor of West Virginia Gaston
Caperton, who was one of the keynote speakers at the Congress.

The Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT) is a non-profit
educational organization of governing boards, representing more than
6,500 elected and appointed trustees who govern over 1,200 community,
technical, and junior colleges in the United States, Canada, and
England. For more information, visit

About MassBay Community College

Massachusetts Bay Community College (MassBay) is an open-access,
accredited two-year public educational institution. The College grants
associate degrees and certificates in a range of disciplines through its
five divisions of academics: the Division of Health Sciences; the
Division of Humanities; the Division of Science, Technology, Engineering
& Math (S.T.E.M.); the Division of Social Sciences & Professional
Studies; and the Division of Transportation & Energy. Offering over 60
academic programs, MassBay serves Boston and the MetroWest communities
with locations in Wellesley Hills, Framingham and Ashland (Automotive
Technology Center).

—

EDWARD NALBANDIAN: "THE NAGORNO KARABAKH CONFLICT CAN BE RESOLVED ONLY BY PEACEFUL MEANS"

Azeri Press Agency
Dec 22 2008
Azerbaijan

Khankendi-APA. "The Nagorno Karabakh conflict should be resolved
peacefully only through the negotiations", Armenian foreign minister
Edward Nalbandian told journalists during his visit to the occupied
lands of Azerbaijan.

APA reports quoting the News Armenia agency as saying that Nalbandian
offered only diplomatic ways for the solution to the conflict. "Nagorno
Karabakh’s participation in the negotiations process is particularly
important and we respect the Nagorno Karabakh administration. The
settlement of the conflict is impossible without the Nagorno
Karabakh’s participation. The conflict can be used only by taking
the Karabakh people’s self-determination rights into consideration",
said Nalbandian.

LEVON ZURABIAN: ARMENIAN AUTHORITIES SPARED NO EFFORTS FOR NO HALL IN COUNTRY TO BE PROVIDED FOR HOLDING ANC CONFERENCE

NOYAN TAPAN

Dec 22, 2008
YEREVAN

The main subjects of discussion at the conference of the Armenian
National Congress (ANC) held on December 21 at the hall of ANC
Erebuni office were issues regarding Nagorno Karabakh settlement,
problems of financial-economic crisis and possible ways of coming out
of it, as well as home political issues regarding restoration of the
constitutional order in Armenia.

Besides first RA President Levon Ter-Petrosian, former political
prisoner Vardan Malkhasian, Chairman of ANC youth organizations’ Board
Karen Karapetian, former political prisoner and a representative of
the Union of Armenian Volunteers Zhirayr Sefilian, Board Chairwoman
of the Hnchak Social-Democratic Party Lyudmila Sargsian, Chairmen of
the Hanrapetutin (Republic) party and the People’s Party of Armenia
Aram Z. Sargsian and Stepan Demirchian spoke at the conference.

According to ANC central office head Levon Zurabian, the conference
was held in such a limited staff as the Armenian authorities not
only refused to provide them the government sitting hall for holding
the conference, but also spared no efforts for no other hall in the
country to be provided for that purpose.

L. Zurabian said that 18 parties, 20 NGOs and 10 youth organizations,
as well as dozens of thousands of people are included in ANC. At
present ANC offices operate in all Armenian regions and Yerevan
communities. It is also supposed to open offices in all former
RA regional centers, that is, to increase their number more than
three-fold. ANC also has branches in Moscow and Los Angeles.

The representative of ANC central office said that a telethon
on raising funds for Armenia’s political prisoners will be held
on December 21 in Los Angeles by the AMGA Armenian-language TV
channel. The telethon is organized by the Eurokanch (Eurocall) center
for civil cooperation.

NKR President meets the Foreign Minister of Armenia

armradio.am
20.12.2008 12:23

On 19 December NKR President Bako Sahakyan met the Foreign Minister of
the Republic of Armenia Edward Nalbandian.

Issues related to widening of cooperation between the Foreign
Ministries of the two Armenian states, the current stage and prospects
of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement were discussed at the
meeting.

NKR Minister of Foreign Affairs Georgy Petrossyan partook at the
meeting.

IT’S BACK
By Michael Getler

PBS – Public Broadcasting
its_back.html
Dec 18 2008

What is broadly described as the "Armenian Genocide" — the epic
saga of what many, but not all, historians and many, but not all,
countries describe as the genocide against the Armenians carried
out by the Young Turks of the Ottoman Empire during World War I —
will never be forgotten. Nor should it be. Nor, it appears, will
PBS’s role in presenting this century-old controversy be forgotten.

More than two years ago, in April 2006, PBS aired a one-hour
documentary titled "The Armenian Genocide" by independent New York
filmmaker Andrew Goldberg and Oregon Public Broadcasting. It was, as I
wrote at the time, "a powerful and skillfully edited production" that
was no "on-the one-hand, on-the-other-hand account. This was a film
that sought to validate the genocide and nail down the issue with the
best evidence the producers could bring to the screen and into American
households." I actually wrote three columns about this program, the
last one, on April 21, 2006, includes links to the two earlier columns.

The reason for three columns is because the issue remains intensely
controversial among some — Turks, in particular, and a small
but committed collection of historians who dispute the mainstream
view and the appropriateness of the term genocide. The issue is so
controversial that PBS convened a televised panel of four scholars
on opposing sides charged with "Exploring the Issues" that appeared
immediately after the 2006 documentary was broadcast. Many stations,
however, including some big ones with lots of Armenians in the local
population, chose not to air the panel that included an American and
a Turkish participant who disagree with the genocide label.

As I said in that last column in April 2006, it seemed to me that
this was not what one would call a balanced issue and that there is
"a more substantial body of evidence and historical assessment on
the side of what happened to the Armenians." This was a sophisticated
documentary that made clear its assessment but also drew at least some
attention to the other side of the story so it did not, in my view,
violate PBS editorial guidelines. The panel that was tacked on could
have added more perspective from the Turkish side, but it was only
25 minutes and I thought it was poorly handled.

The point here is not to go over this unending controversy but
I bring it up, in shortened form, because late in November, PBS’s
Frontline World posted online a film called "Turkey: A Family Erased,"
a 12-minute documentary about an Armenian American family in search
of its ancestral Armenian home in what is now eastern Turkey. The
film is touching in ways that such films can be, and the young Turkish
children they find in the village are as warm and charming as any. But
the father makes clear at the outset that his ancestors were victims
of a series of massacres at the hands of the Turks in what he calls
the first genocide of the 20th century.

So, as was the case with the first documentary, members of the Turkish
American community and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations
have mounted another large e-mail campaign (much of it sent to me)
and a protest letter to PBS criticizing this as "little more than
a paid advertisement for a single view on a genuine and unfinished
historic debate."

I’m not going to go over all of this again but you can watch this short
film on the Frontline World Web site and you can also read well-stated
criticisms, and responses by Frontline World that include references
to my earlier columns, as well as a commentary by the filmmaker,
George Kachadorian.

There are some things about this new online film that bothered me,
but I don’t think it violated Frontline World’s editorial guidelines
for what it calls these "Rough Cut" films. Its guidelines state:
"Rough Cut videos will adhere to the same rigorous journalistic and
production standards as all FRONTLINE/World reports, but they may be
more idiosyncratic, more personal, more unconventional than our usual
television documentaries." This film is certainly more idiosyncratic
and personal than what one might expect.

The film is about the family of the filmmaker, an American of
Armenian descent. One of the things that I found bothersome about
the 2006 documentary for television was that the names of families
and foundations supporting and paying for that film seemed to be
overwhelmingly Armenian American. Another thing that was troublesome
about the 2006 TV production — more specifically about the panel
that was added on — was that congressmen in New York, California
and elsewhere where there are large numbers of Armenian Americans
lobbied hard, and with some success, to have the panel excluded
from the broadcast. The TV documentary, as I said earlier, was a
sophisticated production. This 12-minute film is not. It states its
case, through the family, unequivocally.

Frontline World answers that observation this way: "While we recognize
that some may dispute official estimates of the Armenian dead, and
that there remains plenty of room for scholarly inquiry into the deeply
complicated events of that time, we think Kachadorian’s piece, in its
unqualified assertion of genocide, is squarely within the current
scholarly consensus on the issue. We await future opportunities
to tell more stories — from all possible angles and viewpoints —
that help us reckon with this difficult history."

That’s a fair response. Nevertheless, this sort of home movie on
Frontline World surprised me and it struck me as odd that PBS, having
broadcast an earlier, careful and scholarly documentary, plus an
unusual follow-up panel — both of which attracted national attention,
controversy and thousands of e-mails on all sides — would come back
to this topic in this fashion.

PRESIDENT OF ARMENIA LEAVING FOR KAZAKHSTAN

armradio.am
19.12.2008 11:08

The President of the Republic of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, is leaving
for Kazakhstan on December 19 to participate in the non-official
summit of the Heads of State, President’s Press Office reported.