Author: Frangulian Shushan

Families of March 1st Victims Request Meeting with PACE Co-Rapporteurs
2010/02/27 | 18:06

society

Dear members of the Permanent Monitoring Committee of PACE,

In 2001, our country became amember of the Council of Europe. In 2002
it joined the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms.

During all this time, PACE has adopted numerous resolutions on
Armenia. However, they have not contributed to the improvement of
effective human rights protection in the country.

Moreover, those resolutions and PACE structures including the
Monitoring Committee, have not essentially contributed to the
development of newly established democratic institutions in Armenia
and to democracy in general.

Proof of the above are the fraudulent and falsified presidential
elections of 2008 and the illegal engagement of the army for
intimidating and controlling peaceful protesters. This resulted in the
death of 10 people, numerous others being wounded, hundreds of
political dissidents arrested and the detention several dozen others.

After the tragic events of March 1-2, 2008, PACE has adopted 4
resolutions, among which #1609 has probably been the most impartial in
recording the existing situation, and which mentions compulsory steps
for the Armenian authorities to implement.

However, during these two years PACE and its Monitoring Committee in
fact did not make any practical steps for bringing to the life
resolution #1609, as well as the three following three following
resolutions.

Nor did PACE rely to its authority and leverages of influence to
contribute to comprehensive reveal and punishment of those guilty for
March 1-2 events. Regrettably, PACE neglected publicly known facts. We
are surprised and confused about application of double standards by
PACE.

We, the families of the victims of March 1-2, 2008 events, are
indignant and protest the behavior of PACE Co-rapporteurs George
Colombier and John Prescott. Particularly, it is unclear and
unacceptable for us their announcement made on February 2, 2010 and
posted on the official website of the CoE.

What does it mean `The Armenian authorities need to implement the
reforms recommended by the ad hoc Committee of the National Assembly
of Armenia on the events of 1 and 2 March 2008, without further
delay,’? Or what does it mean that `The reforms recommended by the ad
hoc Committee, in combination with those contained in the relevant
PACE resolutions, if implemented in good faith, could comprehensively
address the circumstances that led to the events of 1 and 2 March
2008,’? During these two years time, the justice system and
authorities of Armenia have been unable to find murderers of our
children, and now, should we wait for reforms …?

PACE officials, especially Mr. Prescott and Mr. Colombier, are well
aware that the Armenian authorities are deliberately not revealing
those responsible for tragic events of March 1-2, 2008.

In the document prepared by co-rapporteurs (AS/Mon (2009) 38), article
41, they are pointing out that there is an impression that Armenia’s
ad hoc parliamentary committee censors itself and tries by all means
to avoid openly discrediting the official version of the authorities,
which is regrettable and casts doubt over the whole investigation.

Thus, Mr. Prescott and Mr. Colombier contradict themselves, on one
hand by announcing that investigation of the ad hoc parliamentary
committee has not been fair and the murders have not been revealed up
to day, and on the other hand, by demanding a reform schedule from
another parliamentary committee and the Chairman of the National
Assembly and expecting that such a process can be successful.

Judicial reform has been underway in Armenia since 1998. Overall,
Armenian legislation is in line with CoE standards. In order to have
the guilty for March 1-2 crimes revealed, elections not falsified,
freedom of speech not limited and political dissents not persecuted,
it is also necessary that high rank officials of PACE express timely,
impartial and adequate assessments that Armenian authorities are
failing to fulfill their
obligations to the CoE.

The crimes of March 1-2 happened not because of bad legislation or
slow reforms, but among others, as a consequence of actual inaction of
PACE and its `one step forward’ assessments continuously given to
incumbent authorities about their fulfillment of obligations to the
CoE.

Armenia’s obligations towards the Council of Europe were last
discussed at the summer session of 2009. Afterwards, due to inactivity
and indifference of the co-rapporteurs, Armenian authorities started
to claim publicly, that the March 1 page is closed…

We have an impression that among those who back this statement aiming
to cover murders of our children, are Mr. Prescott and Mr. Colombier,
who did not participate in the December 17, 2008 Session of the
Monitoring Committee and therefore, the document they had prepared was
never presented and discussed at this session.

Later, during discussions at the January 27-28, 2010 session of the
Monitoring Committee, the February 2 statement appeared, regarding
reform schedule and political prisoner Nikol Pashinyan.

And where did demands to the Armenian government disappear? I.e. why
is a proper investigation not carried out to reveal crimes of March
1-2? Why haven’t those guilty for illegally using armed forces for the
oppression of the peaceful demonstration been punished? One of those
killed, Tigran Abgaryan, was doing his military service.

Why hasn’t a comprehensive investigation to reveal how and with whose
order had he appeared in the central streets of Yerevan been carried
out – who ordered him, an ordinary soldier, to be transferred from
his military unit to the centre of the capital?

There are numerous video records of how Armenian armed forces were
being transported to the central streets of Yerevan before March 1 and
after the emergency situation.

There is also the executive order of then president Robert Kocharyan
concerning the emergency situation, where he mentions that the
Ministry of Defense is among the implementers and servers of the
emergency situation.

`We have to use the opportunity of the army…’ President Kocharyan said
these words on March 1, 2008, during his midnight meeting with
journalists… Isn’t PACE interested in these facts? If so, why are the
PACE Co-rapporteurs neglecting them?

With the knowledge of PACE, the fact finding group was closed, while
the latter put some light over true circumstances of March 1-2 murders
and events.

With the knowledge of PACE, the ARF representative Armen Roostamyan
was involved in the Monitoring Committee as an opposition deputy,
while his party, being part of the government, actually shares the
responsibility for March 1-2 tragic events and for building an
authoritarian regime in our country.

During the last 10 years, the ARF has been part of the government and
has supported former president Kocharyan. Only recently did this party
claim itself an opposition and officially announced that they are
withdrawing from the government coalition because of disagreement in
foreign policy issues.

We are aware that on March 12, 2010 during the meeting session of
Permanent Committee in Paris the period of authorization of the
Co-rapporteurs is going to be discussed. Thus, we urge you to include
in your discussions the issues raised in this appeal.

We want to believe that in its actions and assessments PACE will
indeed be the conscience of democratic Europe.

Dear members of PACE Monitoring Committee,

Taking into account the above mentioned and wishing to present our
demands and comments in more details, we would appreciate a meeting
with co-rapporteurs for Armenia, George Colombier and John Prescott,
during their next visit to Armenia.

We believe that this meeting is absolutely necessary and we strongly
insist on it. We assume, that at least in this issue, the Monitoring
Committee should be interested as well.

Sincerely,
Families of victims of March 1-2, 2008 criminal events

Agos Weekly, Istanbul
Feb 21 2010

Turkey is the most frequently condemned country in the history of the ECHR

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared that from its
foundation until the end of 2009, Turkey came first in violation
judgements. Accordingly, 20 percent of all violation judgments were
entered for Turkey among the 47 signatory states. Namely, 2,295
judgments were entered for Turkey. For the same period, 2,021
judgments were entered for Italy and 862 judgments were entered for
Russia.

In 2009, Turkey was again the worst human rights violator, with 356
cases out of a total of 1,625. Russia followed Turkey with 210
judgments against it and then came Romania and Ukraine, with 168 and
126 judgments respectively.

In terms of `right to life,’ 217 judgments were entered by the ECHR
since 1959, in which the states were directly or indirectly
responsible for a death. Russia led in this category with 115
judgments, while Turkey came second with 76. Among the remaining 45
states, seven of the state-related death cases concern Bulgaria and 19
cases concern other countries.

Bako Sahakyan pays tribute to Sumgait victims

27.02.2010 13:57 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ President of the Artsakh Republic Bako Sahakyan
accompanied by top officials attended Saturday the Stepanakert
memorial complex to pay tribute to the victims of Sumgait pogroms,
Central Information Department of the NKR President Office reported.

The pogroms of Armenians in Sumgait (a town located a half an hour
drive away from Baku) took place on February 27-29, 1988. The events
were preceded by a wave of anti-Armenian statements and rallies that
swept over Azerbaijan. Almost the entire area of the town with
population of 250 thousand became a site of unhindered mass pogroms.
Armed with iron rods, stones, axes, knives, bottles and canisters full
of petrol, the perpetrators broke in Armenian houses. There were
dozens of casualties, mostly burnt alive after assaults and torture.
Hundreds of innocent people were wounded and disabled. The story of
Sumgait marked the first entry in a long list of crimes against
humanity and ethnic cleansings of the end of the 20th century.

WHAT HINDERS TO OPEN THE BORDER

s16972.html
11:01:11 – 26/02/2010

In response to the request to comment on the statement of the Turkish
foreign minister, the staff of the president answered that in Kiev
the Armenian president did not receive the Turkish foreign minister.

Among other invited persons, Davutoglu participated in the swearing-in
ceremony of the Ukrainian newly-elected president where he approached
Serge Sargsyan and exchanged opinions with him.

Serge Sargsyan underlined that political will is needed to move
forward and Armenia thinks the current process is to be taken to its
logical conclusion as soon as possible otherwise, as it was stated
previously, the Republic of Armenia will renounce from its signature
of the protocols.

He reiterated that the involvement of Turkey in the settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue is impossible because it is a country providing
with unilateral military aid one of the conflicting sides-Azerbaijan,
and always issues partial statements.

Sargsyan told his collocutor that a country which dreams about a region
without borders has to do the first step to eliminate the blockade of
Armenia which will enable communication and transport infrastructures
to function in the region. He said that if the Azerbaijani repression
does not let the Turkish parliament ratify the protocols, nothing
holds back Turkey from opening the border that it once closed. The
press service of the president reports.

OSCE MONITORING ON ARMENIAN-AZERI CONTACT LINE HELD WITH NO RECORDED INCIDENTS

Interfax
Feb 24 2010
Russia

The Organization for Security and Co- operation in Europe (OSCE) has
once again monitored the contact line between the Azeri and Armenian
armies, Azerbaijan’s Defense Ministry told Interfax on Tuesday.

Held towards the south from the village of Tezekend in Agdam, it was
conducted with no recorded incidents, the ministry said.

The Azeri side was monitored by OSCE chairman-in-office’s personal
representative Andrzej Kasprzyk with his field assistants Peter Key
and Vladimir Chountulov.

The Armenian side was monitored by OSCE chairman-in-office personal
representative’s field assistants Imre Palatinus, Irji Aberle and
Zhaslan Nurtazin.

ARMENIAN NEOCONSERVATIVES CALL ON CHINA TO RECOGNIZE GENOCIDE

PanARMENIAN.Net
25.02.2010 14:48 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Around 60 representatives of National Neoconservative
Movement (NNM) of Armenia held a rally at Chinese Embassy in Armenia
Thursday, February 25.

Following the appeal of NNM chairman Edgar Gegelyan to recognize the
Armenian Genocide, demonstrators passed a letter addressed to the
Ambassador of Peoples’ Republic of China.

The letter urges PRC to recognize the Armenian Genocide and acknowledge
Azeri aggression against Nagorno Karabakh as a consequence of
pan-Turkic program, drawing analogies between reunification of Taiwan
with China and Artsakh with Armenia.

The Armenian Genocide (1915-23) was the deliberate and systematic
destruction of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during
and just after World War I. It was characterized by massacres, and
deportations involving forced marches under conditions designed to
lead to the death of the deportees, with the total number of deaths
reaching 1.5 million.

The majority of Armenian Diaspora communities were formed by the
Genocide survivors.

To date, twenty countries and 44 U.S. states have officially recognized
the events of the period as genocide, and most genocide scholars and
historians accept this view.

The conflict between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan broke out in
1988, as result of the ethnic cleansing the latter launched in the
final years of the Soviet Union. The Karabakh War was fought from
1991 (when the Nagorno Karabakh Republic was proclaimed) to 1994
(when a ceasefire was sealed by Armenia, NKR and Azerbaijan). Most
of Nagorno Karabakh and a security zone consisting of 7 regions is
now under control of NKR defense army. Armenia and Azerbaijan are
holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group up till now.

MENSOIAN: IF THE ARF FAILS TO CONFRONT THE CHALLENGES, WHO WILL?
By Michael Mensoian

/mensoian-if-the-arf-fails-to-confront-the-challen ges-who-will/
February 22, 2010

Deja vu. Again we anxiously wait to see if the resolution recognizing
the Armenian Genocide will be favorably voted out of the House Foreign
Relations Committee. If Turkey with its coterie of paid lobbyists,
academic surrogates, and other associated anti-genocide proponents
fails to defeat congressional passage of the resolution, another moral
victory may be added to the two dozen or so moral victories in hand
from foreign governments that have recognized the genocide.

Several years ago it was opined that Turkey was sufficiently emboldened
to launch a diplomatic offensive that was geared to placing Yerevan in
a compromising position based on its obsessive desire to normalize
relations and have an open border (see "Normalization Can Never
Be Worth Turkey’s Asking Price," the Armenian Weekly, Dec. 6,
2008). Secret negotiations between Ankara and Yerevan during 2008
culminated in President Serge Sarkisian’s "surprise" invitation to
Turkish President Abdullah Gul to attend the soccer match in Yerevan.

Thus began the "soccer diplomacy" charade leading to the signing
of the protocols and Sarkisian’s invitation to witness the second
meeting of their nation’s soccer teams in Bursa, Turkey.

At the same time in the United States, the Armenian electorate was
euphoric when candidate Obama recognized the Armenian Genocide as
a historic fact. Why those who supported his candidacy should have
been dismayed when this charming eloquent politician qualified his
explanation is difficult to understand. As president, he adroitly
side-stepped his acceptance of the Armenian Genocide by essentially
saying that it was his personal belief and not the basis for United
States foreign policy (see "President Obama’s Message to Turkey: Let’s
Agree to Disagree on the Armenian Genocide," the Armenian Weekly,
April 18, 2009).

Rapprochement is the Turkish Trojan Horse of their diplomatic offensive
whose acceptance will marginalize Armenia as an effective political
entity. Its concomitant objective is to eliminate the political,
economic, and psychological "millstone" that Hai Tahd represents
and by association the influence of the Dashnaktsutiun that has been
Hai Tahd’s historic proponent. Recently Sarkisian not only challenged
recalcitrant Turkey to ratify the protocols, but has spoken forcefully
with respect to Karabagh’s right to independence. Hopefully this is not
more "planned spontaneity." Time will tell. However, the ARF remains
the principal Armenian organization opposed to the ratification of
these documents. Individuals and organizations that have accepted
the view "Let’s see what happens" or "It’s in the best interests of
Armenia" represents a grasping for straws which places faith in a
process that has yet to show how the Armenian nation will benefit. It
is this group that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encourages to
continue their support of Yerevan.

Normalization with an open border provides absolutely no benefit
for Armenia. No explanation has yet been offered by proponents
to contradict this assessment. Any benefit that might be conjured
would come at an exorbitant cost (see "Sarkisian’s Faustian Bargain,"
Armenian Weekly, Oct. 24, 2009). While the United States continues to
press Yerevan, the Minsk Group (United States, France, and Russia),
representing the interests of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), continues to seek a settlement of
the Karabagh conflict that will deny de jure independence to the
Karabaghtsis (see "The Key to Armenia’s Future Political and Economic
Future," the Armenian Weekly, January 2010 magazine). Political
stability and economic development in the south Caucasus is a laudable
goal, but should it come at the expense of Armenia’s interests and
those Armenians who live in the historic Armenian regions of Artsakh,
Javakhk, and eastern Anatolia?

Since independence in 1991, a maelstrom of events has battered
Armenia and the Armenians of Artsakh and Javakhk. The protocols and
rapprochement are the most recent issues to confront the Armenian
nation. The ARF has recognized the inherent dangers to Armenia
posed by these protocols. The Jan. 12, 2010 ruling by Armenia’s
Constitutional Court tangentially confirmed the ARF’s concerns, but
does not prevent the protocols from being presented to parliament
for ratification. Ankara views the decision as hindering their
insidious plot to use the protocols’ suggested historic commission
to redefine the Armenian "Genocide." The Turkish end-game has always
been to marginalize Armenia, eliminate the moral issue of genocide
that besets the nation, and in the process nullify Hai Tahd and
the influence of the Dashnaktsutiun. According to their reasoning,
whatever else remains will easily fall into place.

Unfortunately, neither preventing the ratification of the protocols
nor genocide recognition by the United States Congress will provide
the proverbial "silver bullet" that will smite Turkey and allow final
victory to be declared. (To what political end has genocide recognition
by France and Russia served?) A universe of legitimate issues
exist-many are long-standing-that must be vigorously confronted and
resolved before Armenia’s future is secure. The singular problem for
the ARF is to determine the how and when and where it may efficiently
and effectively respond to these challenges. This is no easy matter.

This universe of issues encompasses the harsh unjustified political,
economic, and cultural policies that the Georgian government imposes
upon the Javakheti Armenians. Yerevan is not aggressively confronting
Tbilisi on these policies and actions that contravene the required
economic, political, and core democratic value changes in its treatment
of minorities agreed to by Georgia in 2006 as a member of the European
Union’s "European Neighborhood Policy" (ENP). And this by a government
that the United States steadfastly maintains is the beacon of democracy
in the south Caucasus. If these discriminatory policies by Tbilisi
are not challenged (hopefully by the ARF) within the next several
generations Armenian Javakhk will be irretrievably lost.

Linked to this "harassment" is the perversion of justice perpetrated on
the Javakheti Armenian activist Vahagnn Chakhalyan (sentenced in 2009
to 10 years in prison) that has been visited upon two other activists:
Gurgen Shirinyan, who was given a 3-year sentence in October 2009 in
addition to a 17-year sentence originally handed down in 2008, both
trials in absentia; and the ongoing trial of Aram Batoyan, again in
absentia, who is being tried on charges that date back to 2005 (see
"Javakheti Activist Vahagn Chakhalyan: Justice Denied by Georgia,"
the Armenian Weekly, Sept. 19, 2009). This police and judicial
misconduct has been documented by Yerkir Union and acknowledged by
the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).

Then there is Karabagh. Since the 1994 ceasefire, the imperative to
resettle strategic areas of Karabagh has languished. What happened to
the government’s program to increase the population by some 100,000
people? During the 14 years of de facto independence, the population
has basically remained unchanged (see "The Political-Strategic
Resettlement of Karabagh’s Security Zone," the Armenian Weekly, June
30-July 7, 2007). On another front, what is being done to lay the
requisite foundation to support Karabagh’s right to be recognized
as an independent political entity? It will take more than public
declarations that the Karabaghtsis have this inalienable right. It
would be a logical initiative for the ARF to convene a conference of
recognized scholars who would discuss the legal and human rights basis
for the former Soviet autonomous region of Karabagh to be independent.

Coincidentally, what is being done to influence sympathetic
journalists, political leaders (especially members of the U.S.

Congressional Armenian Caucus), business leaders, leaders of advocacy
groups, and the public at large (including Armenians) by visits and
reports to support Karabagh’s right to recognition? Azerbaijan and its
enabler Turkey are being allowed to describe the conflict in terms
of terrorist activity and the claim for independence as an Armenian
irredentist ploy.

And now Turkey. There are so many issues that have been left to
languish. Where to begin? The destruction and seizure of religious
and educational property and its restitution or indemnification have
not been forcefully and continuously challenged in appropriate venues.

Neither has government policy allowing for the physical decay of
cultural artifacts or for their planned destruction. What of the
Armenian farmlands, businesses, and homes that were involuntarily
abandoned when the Ottoman Turkish government carried out its
genocidal plan to empty historic western Armenia (eastern Turkey) of
its inhabitants resulting in the systematic murder of some 1.5 million
innocent Armenian men, women, and children? At best only sporadic,
uncoordinated, and ineffectively implemented actions have been made
to challenge these issues to which Turkey is vulnerable.

And finally, what of the tens of thousands of children and young women
who were "taken" by tribal villagers (under varying circumstances)
and required to live within an alien cultural environment. During
the ensuing 90 years, these "lost" Armenians of the genocide became
the progenitors of successive generations who presently populate the
Turkish western provinces of historic Armenia. Has thought been given
to what should or could be done with respect to these "forgotten"
Armenians still connected by blood to the martys of the genocide?

It is obvious that this universe of issues contains more than the
protocols and genocide recognition. In accepting the challenge, the ARF
faces a Herculean task that far transcends anything the Dashnaktsutiun
may have attempted in the past. In charting its course of action, the
ARF must continue its active engagement of the Armenian Diaspora for
the moral and financial support required to achieve its mission. And
it must harness the expertise of those dedicated Armenian men and
women who can assist in formulating and implementing the initiatives
necessary to achieve its objectives. Now is the most critical period in
the modern history of the Armenian nation. If the Dashnaktsutiun fails
to vigorously and effectively confront these challenges, who will?

TURKEY IS AFRAID OF THE PROTOCOLS

Agos Weekly
=news&news_id=1444&cat_id=11
Feb 21 2010
Istanbul

The protocols, which plan for the creation of diplomatic relations
between Armenia and Turkey, set out a neighbourhood policy that can
incorporate the common past, and call for the opening of the land
border, are turning out to be more than Turkey can swallow.

Today, the Foreign Ministry of Turkey desperately tries to use an
annotation of the Armenian Constitutional Court in the approval
of the protocol. The campaign is on to make Turkish public opinion
believe that Armenia proposed an "additional condition" and "damaged
the essence" of the protocols. Yet, this campaign has to assume that
the public’s opinion is so ignorant as to be easily manipulated. As is
known by the Turkish public and the world, it was Turkey that proposed
additional conditions and bound itself unwisely with these additional
conditions. It was Tayyip Erdogan who made the issue of Karabakh
almost a "pre-condition" and committed to it in the Parliament of
Azerbaijan while there was not a single mention of Karabakh in the
protocols… Minister of Foreign Affairs Davutoglu also spoke in
the same manner, making the protocols an extension of the "alliance"
between Turkey and Azerbaijan.

Actually, Armenia should have objected at that point. They didn’t,
Turkey was shown tolerance, and apparently, this was the mistake.

However, along with the entire world noting that there was no
relationship between the protocols and Karabakh, Turkey withdrew inward
and it was revealed that the domination strategy conducted through
self-confidence in this process only turned out to be self-deception.

It cannot be taken seriously to pretend that the annotated approval
of the Armenian Constitutional Court is an obstacle. Before all else,
demonstrating any country’s reference to its own constitution as an
obstacle can be only possible for those who are alien to the state
tradition. The constitution in question was in force before the
signing of the protocols and was associated with the Declaration of
Independence in 1992. That the Armenian Constitutional Court approved
the protocols only by adding an annotation shows that they pushed their
state mentality to the limits. A society that believes in the existence
of genocide wholeheartedly and feels it in every family individually
allows disputability of this matter by the hand of the supreme court.

The annotation refers to article 11 of the Armenian Declaration of
Independence, and says that Armenia will support "the efforts in the
international arena for the recognition of 1915 Genocide". What can
be more natural? Or, is it supposed that signature of the protocols
implies that Armenia ceases to regard the 1915 events as genocide
officially? What is the use of a "historical commission" in this case?

As the protocols do not imply that Turkey names 1915 as genocide,
they do not prove that Armenia gives up the genocide argument,
either. Both countries will sustain their general stance in line with
their ideologies and constitutional frameworks. This is the meaning
of the protocols in opening a door between two countries without
offending their ongoing attitudes.

Unfortunately, while Turkey has passed the "democratic threshold" on
the Armenian issue, it has not passed the "psychological threshold"
yet. Turkey is afraid of the protocols… This is the only way of
explaining the awkward "conspiracy" scenes of Davutoglu. Isn’t it the
same timing every year for the draft likely to be brought to the U.S.

House of Representatives? Davutoglu claimed that it is "not
unconscious"… Was he expecting it to be unconscious? What would be
the "right timing" if he were a member of the Armenian Diaspora or
a U.S.

parliamentarian? Departing from the absence of any time pressure on
Turkey when the protocols were signed, the Minister of Foreign Affairs
has complained that Turkey was put under pressure by using the date
of April 24. It would be asked then, "What have you done so far?" Or,
are we doomed to such a shallow point of view that they could expect
the opening of border and postponement of the recognition of the
genocide eternally by signing a protocol?

It is not possible to imagine that the Foreign Ministry and the
state of Turkey could approach the matter so superficially. However,
no one should assume that the society of Turkey is so simple-minded
as to be satisfied with state manipulation. The only reason for the
blockage of the protocols period is that Turkey could not pass the
psychological threshold coming from the past and the government could
not carry this burden.

Turkey was scared of the protocols because it means "normalization"
that is not to be controlled by any state. In other words, both
societies will get to know each other again and recall their own
history together. The "Armenian" side longs for meeting and recalling,
the "Turkish" side is anxious about this. The past to be revealed
brings the "clean" history established by the Republic and the
dependent "clean" identity down to the ground, to reality.

In fact, the protocol is just a ghost… Turkey is scared of its own
past, itself.

CROSSING THE RED LIGHT
Hakob Badalyan

hos16905.html
11:16:23 – 22/02/2010

Nadezhda Sargsyan who is protesting that the national selection for
Eurovision 2010 was rigged and as a result her daughter Emmy will
not leave for Oslo, states that the head of the Public TV Aleksan
Harutyunyan had promised her that Emmy and Mihran duet would represent
Armenia at Eurovision. Aleksan Harutyunyan stated that he had never
promised such a thing to Nadezhda Sargsyan. The point is not this.

The point is that complaining of injustice and fraud Nadezhda Sargsyan
uses as an argument the fact that she was promised that her daughter
would be sent to the competition. Have she thought for one second
to say that she would be happy but she prefers the one who would
justly win to go to Eurovision? Or maybe the promise to send Emmy to
Eurovision dimmed Nadezhda Sargsyan’s sense of justice and the notion
of choice?

Probably not. Everything is much simpler, and should be considered in
the plane of the Armenian perception of "fairness". For most Armenians
injustice is not acceptable only if it applies to them personally
or to their immediate environment, otherwise everything is fair
and lawful. Well, if injustice serves for them and their relatives,
so this is already the highest degree of "fairness".

That is why when someone from the "privileged" crosses a red light, the
other drivers are complaining not because it is unjust, but because
such a privilege is unavailable to them. In other words, most of
the drivers of Armenia do not require equality under the red light,
but "equality to cross the red light". And so is in every field of
life. Armenians are outraged when they are cheated and right after,
they begin to look for someone to cheat.

Nadezhda Sargsyan had better to apply to the court not because
the elections were rigged, but because she was cheated. And it has
nothing to do with justice because justice has nothing to do with
the Armenian environment, represented by all of us, including those
involved in Eurovision.

Therefore the main task is to transform the perception of justice of
the society for the latter not to accept the injustice regardless of
the person to whom it applies. In the end, the society is to blame
for this perception because the ruling elites in our country for
many years created the conditions under which people were forced to
rely on injustice and privilege to achieve well-being. Therefore,
the transformation of perception of justice is a primarily task for
the elite. And it is sufficient to ensure the conditions under which
a citizen would have hoped for the fairest way to achieve prosperity.

But the reluctance of elites to create such conditions is quite
understandable. ‘The Armenian perception" of fairness is preferable
for the so-called elite, because in these circumstances, injustice
has a legitimate status, and the society does not complain of the
dominance of injustice, but the lack of personal access to the
privileged injustice, though paradoxical it may seem.

PICKET OUTSIDE IRANIAN EMBASSY IN AZERBAIJAN – PHOTOSESSION

APA
587
Feb 22 2010
Azerbaijan

Baku. Elnur Mammaldi – APA. World Azerbaijanis Congress and Citizen
Solidarity Party picketed outside Iranian embassy in Azerbaijan,
APA reports.

The picketers protested against the action held outside Azerbaijan
consulate in Tabriz, Armenia-Iran relations.

The picketers were carrying photos of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan
and Iranian President Ahmadinejad with the words "Real face of Muslim
fanatics", slogans "Brotherhood with Armenia contradicts Islamic
values!", "No to Persian chauvinism!".

The picketers also chanted "Azerbaijan!", "Russians, Persians and
Armenians are enemies of Turks!".

Chairman of the Permanent Council of the World Azerbaijanis Congress
Ajdar Tagizadeh condemned Iran’s establishing relations with Armenia,
pressures against Azerbaijanis and arrests in Iran.

Following this, a statement was presented to the embassy.

The statement demanded Iran to release the imprisoned Azerbaijanis,
stop relations with Armenia and end insult of Azerbaijanis in Iranian
press.