Author: Jirair Kafian

Philanthropist, Asbarez Supporter Zaruhy Sara Chitjian Passes Away

Jirair Kafian

May 6, 2021



Zaruhy Sara Chitjian

Zaruhy Sara Chitjian, a long-time benefactor of Armenian studies programs and devoted supporter of the Asbarez Newspaper passed away on Monday, the UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology reported.

As a longtime supporter of UCLA and the founder of the Research Program in Armenian Archaeology at the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. Chitjian lived to see US president Joe Biden officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. 

Zaruhy Sara Chitjian, was born in Mexico City in 1933 to Hampartzoum and Ovsanna Chitjian, both survivors of the Armenian Genocide who had met and married in Mexico. In 1935 her family immigrated to the United States settling in Los Angeles where Sara spent the remaining of her life. She earned her Bachelor’s degree in Psychology in 1956 from UC Los Angeles and a year later went on to earn her teaching credentials. She dedicated her life to education and spent the next 40 years teaching for the Los Angeles Unified School District. 

As a descendant of survivors of the Armenian Genocide she had a vested interest in preserving Armenian history and culture, but she had a unique appreciation for cultural heritage in general. As a young teacher at Monlux Elementary, Sara installed the same appreciation for culture into her young students who built models of early California, had visits for a geisha to learn about Japanese Tea Ceremony, and an Aikido sensei who gave demonstrations and taught about the philosophy of martial arts. 

While teaching at Dixie Elementary School, she proposed to teach Armenian history and culture for the “Mini Classes” program of the school, forever changing the landscape of the curriculum throughout Los Angles by becoming the first teacher to raise awareness of Armenian culture through a formal course. She found exciting and creative ways to teach Armenian history and culture, such as having her students try to write their names in Armenian script as she read them about the origin of the alphabet. She also invited prominent Armenian scholars, such as Dr. Richard Hovannisian, Dr. Gerard Liberadian, and Dr. Oshin Keshishian to give guest lectures on topics ranging from art to genocide. 

Sara’s numerous awards in recognition for her contributions and service as a teacher are clear testament to her dedication and passion for educating children. She successfully petitioned for the City of Los Angeles to make April 24th, the day of commemorating the victims of the Armenian Genocide, an excusable day of absence on the school district’s academic calendar. In the 1970s she created an Armenian Teacher Association and The Armenian Urban Center programs, the former trained teachers in providing aid to students who were fleeing the Syrian civil war and the latter developed scholastic curriculum for teaching about Armenian history and culture. In 2017, the Armenian National Committee – Western Region announced named one of its awards the Zaruhy “Sara” Chitjian Armenian Genocide Education Award in honor of Sara’s exemplary commitment to Armenian causes and dedication to preservation of the Armenian heritage through education and philanthropy. The award is present to outstanding educators of Armenian descent who have gone above and beyond to teach Armenian history, culture, and about the Armenian Genocide.

Sara believed strongly in the mission of public education and in memory of her parents and all survivors of the Armenian Genocide, she established the Hampartzoum and Ovsanna Chitjian Foundation to support Armenian Studies programs in higher education. She established four endowments at leading universities each with focus on a specific aspect of Armenian heritage. At University of Southern California (USC) her endowment supports research and study of the Armenian Genocide, California State University, Northridge (CSUN) is the steward of the Chitjian Family archive, at the American University of Armenia (AUA) her endowment supports an entrepreneurship program, and at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) her endowment supports archaeological research in Armenia. Sara was an avid supporter and promoter of Armenian archaeology and cultural heritage. In 2006 she partially sponsored renewed excavations of Dvin, a capital and a large commercial city of early medieval Armenia, and at the world-renown Areni-1 cave site. In 2013, she donated a transformative gift to the UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology that established the Research Program in Armenian Archaeology ensuring that UCLA has a leading presence in the field.  

“In my father’s stories unity is the number one thing or finding a way to be united… ‘Here lies an Armenian boy who suffered all his life because of Armenian dis-unity’…he wanted that on his tombstone. He was telling the Armenian community ‘unite’ and we still don’t get that message…this is why I am doing what I am doing…not to forget.” Sara carried her father’s message of unity through all her life and works, preserving the memory of the past and promoting awareness was of outmost importance to her and the various programs she established ensure that the rich history and heritage of the Armenian people is preserved and passed on for generations to come.  

Her memory and her life-long mission to spread knowledge and raise awareness of Armenian history and cultural heritage will be carried on in the work of the members of the Armenian Archaeology Lab whose research is made possible by Sara’s generosity. We are grateful for her unwavering support and will forever hold her dear in our memories. 

For more information about the Sara’s legacy visit the Chitjian Foundation page.

Europe Day 2021 celebration activities in Armenia will be launched on May 10

Jirair Kafian

Save

Share

 16:26, 7 May, 2021

YEREVAN, MAY 7, ARMENPRESS. The European Union Delegation to Armenia would like to announce the launching of the Europe Day 2021 activities in Armenia on 10th May, the Delegation told Armenpress.

The activities will be held under the EU-Armenia ‘Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement’ theme and will include thematic discussions, cultural events and regional events in Gyumri and Debed. The activities will take place in online-offline formats, ensuring compliance with COVID-19 protocols at all times.

The Europe Day celebrations will commence with thematic online discussions on Road Safety, Regional Development and Environment, they will continue with regional events concentrated on youth and innovation, as well as tourism and will also include a holographic projection, placement of a photobooth in major cities and musical inputs. The celebrations will culminate with an online concert on 19th May, which will be livestreamed via EU Delegation social media.

The Embassies of EU Member States accredited to Armenia will also join the celebrations.

The European Union Delegation to Armenia would like to inform the media representatives that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the attendance to offline events is limited this year.

However, all the details about the activities will be available on the Delegation’s social media accounts:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/eudelegationtoarmenia(link is external)

Twitter: https://twitter.com/eu_armenia(link is external)

Instagram: euinarmenia

For media inquiries please contact Anahit Azatyan, Press and Information Officer, EU Delegation to Armenia [email protected](link sends e-mail).

***

On 9 May 1950, Robert Schuman presented his proposal on the creation of an organised Europe, necessary for peaceful relations and development.  Today, the 9th of May has become a European symbol (Europe Day) which, along with the flag, the anthem, the motto and the single currency (Euro), identifies the political entity of the European Union. Europe Day is the occasion for festivities that bring Europe closer to its citizens and neighbours.

Aravot: Against hysterical noise

Jirair Kafian
Against hysterical noise

May 04,2021 22:17
Jirair Libaridian

This article was written as a Post Scriptum to a volume of the author’s selected writings, “Armenia-Turkey. Statehood, History, Politics”, to be published this year. The article is being released now considering its immediate relevance to the present moment.

Azerbaijan’s September 2020 war against Nagorno-Karabakh was different from previous military conflicts in several ways. One was the type and level of military assistance that Turkey provided to Azerbaijan. There is no doubt that the role assumed by Turkey during that war constituted an important step against the interests of Armenia and Artsakh. There is also no doubt that this step was part of Turkey’s general policy towards Armenia in recent years.

Given the importance of that assistance in the defeat of the Armenian side, the usefulness and/or expediency of starting a dialogue with Turkey, or of establishing normal relations, would certainly be questioned in the minds of reasonable people.

It would be natural, then, for this issue to be publicly discussed in all its aspects, and in the context of Armenia’s future foreign and security policies.

However, such a discussion has become almost impossible due to the hysterical noise that some political forces are raising with their daily, endless, and deafening drumbeats. For those forces, Turkey’s participation had only one meaning and significance: that Turkey’s participation was further evidence that Turkey was, and still is, motivated by genocidal instincts, evidence which justified all anti-Turkish sentiments before the war. Consequently, these forces argue, any attempt to normalize relations with Turkey—or even initiate a dialogue—is tantamount to “betrayal.”

It is necessary for those forces that there be no rational discussion. They want to predetermine the response to that legitimate concern by playing on the people’s emotional strings and almost instinctive fears. These people think that it is their God-given monopoly to throw around the word “traitor” left and right. However, an individual, nation, or state guided by reason has no right to make such a weighty decision without very serious and comprehensive discussion. Mistaken choices in foreign policy, seemingly correct conclusions, lessons learned from history and experience which have not been questioned—all have done great damage to our past, and might yet lead to new losses in the future.

What lessons might be learned from history, and how might we decide which lessons to learn? A short-lived, four-day war occurred in April 2016. Azerbaijan was the initiator of that brief war, as a result of which we lost a small area under our control. The fact that this war was initiated by Azerbaijan led many to conclude that Azerbaijan should be punished by entrusting our future to a new war, rather than relying on continued, may be even more intense negotiations. Of course, we could have learned another lesson from that event. It was possible to see the loss of territory, no matter how small, as a sign that the balance of power perhaps had shifted, that losing a war was a serious possibility for our side. Even those who paid attention to the outcome of that war and began to negotiate more seriously insisted on conditions that Azerbaijan had rejected for more than twenty years, without which we could have both made progress in resolving the conflict and avoided a new war. So it was possible to learn the right lessons and take those lessons more seriously. However, instead of changing our approach to such a challenge, we became more and more entrenched in the disposition of “not an inch of land back.” We are familiar with the result.

One can also consider the 2020 military confrontation with Azerbaijan that lasted a few days, the result of which we considered a “victory”. If we rely on public speeches, there is no evidence that this small war, which involved limited units on both sides over a very small area, was seriously analyzed. Without a serious analysis of the event, we instilled in ourselves the confidence that the balance of power had not changed, and in the event of a full-scale war, that we could surely occupy new Azerbaijani territories. The Minister of Defense of Armenia stated as much.

To decide today whether or not we should talk to our opponents, or whether striving for normal relations with them is useful or preferable, it is necessary to answer a few questions. My purpose here is not to discuss and offer answers to all the questions we face in this regard, but simply to present some of the relevant questions as a starting point for a healthy debate.

1) First of all, we need to have a complete, but real picture of the type and quality of threats we face. That is, we must distinguish the sense of fear from the actual reason for it. Our history has given us the reasons for both. However, exaggerating or underestimating the danger poses a serious hazard in itself. Exaggeration can be a reason to ignore possible steps which could reduce threats, or a reason to miss opportunities to do so. Underestimating threats can lead to disaster and defeat.

2) We need to answer the following questions: (a) Why did Azerbaijan stop its advance after occupying Shushi when it could have easily reached Stepanakert? (b) Why did it stop on its side of the southern border of Armenia when it could have crossed it comfortably and reached Nakhichevan? Why did Turkey not send troops across any of our borders when it could have easily done so?

If the answer is that the Russian presence and our defense treaty with Russia was the reason, then why are we so fearful now? After all, that treaty with Russia is still in force, and the Russian presence has not diminished. In fact, it is to the contrary.

Are there other factors which might explain what Azerbaijan and Turkey could have done, but did not do?

And we need to answer the following question. (c) Can these threats be mitigated by talking to Turkey and Azerbaijan?

From the fact of defeat in the war, then, by what logic do we reach the policy of not talking to the enemy or excluding any contacts? I do not see a rationale here. The forces which consider such relations a betrayal had reached that conclusion before this last war, before the 2016 war, and in fact, before any war. Weren’t they the same forces who were against Armenia’s independence, because in case of independence, Turkey would enter Armenia and massacre the rest of the Armenians?

Behind all these comments and conclusions is a simple, hateful, decades-long “national” ideology based on anti-Turkishness. According to this ideology, anti-Turkishness is the essence of Armenianness, it is Armenia’s fate to remain dependent, and it is the people’s duty to hand over power to those who carry and spread that hatred.

There is also an additional, interesting phenomenon. Both before and after the independence of Armenia, these forces did everything they could to prevent the establishment of normal relations with Turkey, and by so doing strengthened the supporters of the extreme, anti-Armenian policy in Turkey. These same forces have made the peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict impossible, a settlement that would have made it possible to establish relations with Turkey and at least reduce the threat posed by that country. Not only that, but this also expressed to Turkey that we have demands from it. That we will always remain enemies because Turkey refuses to return our lands, Western Armenia, to us, and too because it does not recognize the Genocide.

For three decades, the disruptive, beyond-any-rational disposition of these forces has dominated their discourse in different forms and styles. Since 1998, this approach has also been adopted to some extent by our authorities. As I have explained in the introduction to this volume, and as evidenced by the materials included in it, we have made fear the basis of strategic thinking while at the same time threatening and cursing Turkey, and then Azerbaijan. After doing all this, when Turkey takes these factors into account in determining its policy towards Armenia, we hasten to declare that Turkey is hopelessly anti-Armenian and a potentially genocidal state.

And now, without providing an opportunity to examine this issue, those forces want to learn two lessons from this last war. (a) Anti-Turkish policy based on hatred was justified, and this last war constitutes new evidence of it, and (b) it naturally follows that Turkey’s policy is to commit a new genocide. Had that approach been valid, Turkey should have attacked Armenia in the very first days of our independence. That did not happen then, or when Armenia won the war against Azerbaijan in 1991-1994, or when Armenia lost the war in 2020. What did not happen when it could have happened—or according to their analysis should have occurred, but did not—is as important as what happened. I do not see a logic or a method of thinking about strategy here. What we have is a big leap from one fact to a difficult and weighty conclusion. That leap has two foundations. The first is that we have no greater role in history than to be a victim and our destiny is determined. We either become victims, or we avoid that fate in one way or another. In other words, what we do and say does not make any difference, except for what is permitted to us in our role as victim.

Second, what Turkey and Azerbaijan could, but did not do makes no difference. We have our gospel, where everything—and the meaning everything–is already known. There is no need to think anew. “We know”.

We have two main ways to plan future policies. One is the path conditioned by fear and illusions. The second is a strategy based on achievable goals and realistic calculations. When making that choice, we must keep in mind the following two simple principles. (a)  we must not lose what is acceptable and possible by pursuing that which is desirable, yet impossible; (b) we must first be good in order to be able to be very good.

This time, will we learn the right lesson from history?

There is no question here of ignoring dangers, anti-Armenian dispositions, even intentions. However, we do not have the right to entrust our future fully to any individual state or external power. States change. Our friends and enemies change. We change. Our ways of thinking, politics, and diplomacy must strive at least to reduce existing threats. One cannot build a future solely on the politics of weapons, martyred heroes, and the avoidance of responsibility.

If after this last war and its defeat we continue to formulate strategy on an emotional and provincial basis, without considering and calculating all the possibilities, we have no right to expect that the outcome of our policy will be different from the outcome of the previous conflict.

April 2021

Argument between Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers in Syunik

Jirair Kafian
News.am, Armenia
May 1 2021
Argue between Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers in Syunik
13:10, 02.05.2021

Footage has been shared that captured Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers arguing with each other – also using physical force.

Facebook user Anushik Martirosyan, who posted the footage, wrote that the incident took place on the border with Syunik province of Armenia. The video shows that the dispute is related to territorial differences.

Second COVID-19 patient in a month jumps out of Yerevan hospital window

Jirair Kafian

Save

Share

 14:32,

YEREVAN, APRIL 30, ARMENPRESS. A 77-year old man jumped to his death from the window of his hospital room where he was being treated for COVID-19 since April 17, according to the health ministry. This is the second incident in a month when a COVID-19 patient is jumping to his death in Yerevan.

The man was in the hospital room together with his wife, who was also being treated for COVID-19.

According to the health ministry, “there were no issues during the course of the treatment, the patient was carrying out all instructions of doctors and received proper treatment. Experts did not observe any mental deviations.”

Police are at the scene.

Editing and Translating by Stepan Kocharyan

The Wider Context of President Biden’s Armenian Statement – Carnegie Europe

Jirair Kafian
Carnegie Europe – – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    Marc Pierini
Biden’s recognition of the killing and deportation of Armenians as genocide has caused outrage in Turkey. Dealing with a nation’s past is immensely complex. It can only be done by a country’s leaders and citizens.

Well before November 3, 2020, it was clear that a Biden-Harris presidency would be a principled one, firmly anchored in democracy and justice, human rights, and the rule of law.

Since U.S. President Joe Biden’s Inauguration Day, these principles have been applied by the White House, from George Floyd’s death to the case of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, from Belarus to the Uighurs, from access to coronavirus vaccines to the economic recovery plan. On these matters, the page has been turned on the Donald Trump presidency.

The language used in the statement is careful and precise. It refers to atrocities in Constantinople during the Ottoman era and then turns to the future, sending the message that the U.S. is not casting blame on today’s Turkey but rather trying to “ensure that what happened is never repeated.”

The general notion of honoring the victims’ memory in order to “remain ever-vigilant against the corrosive influence of hate on all its forms” is repeated no less than five times in Joe Biden’s statement.

As seen from Brussels, the Biden statement shows a distinct convergence with the European Union, where the “never again” motto has been the founding principle since the Schuman Declaration of May 9, 1950.

In the eyes of older Europeans, the statement also sends a timely message to the younger citizens of America and Europe who could be tempted to forget the atrocities of World War II. It evokes the historic gestures of successive French and German leaders: Konrad Adenauer visiting Charles De Gaulle in 1958, Willy Brand kneeling down in Warsaw in 1970, Helmut Kohl holding hands with François Mitterrand in Douaumont in 1984. And it matches Emmanuel Macron’s constant focus on historical memory.

Most of Turkey’s citizens and politicians are not likely to be impressed by Joe Biden’s statement. On the contrary, a vast majority immediately rejected it and Turkey’s president has called it “baseless, unjust, and untrue.”

Such outrage should come as no surprise. The events between 1915 and 1923—from the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the carving up of the country in the never-ratified Sèvres Treaty, Mustafa Kemal’s war of independence, the Lausanne Treaty, to the proclamation of the Republic in 1923—are the cornerstones of today’s Turkey.

This outrage over Biden’s statement might be brief or long-lasting, but Turkey will not change its position, especially as the centennial celebrations of the Republic are approaching. Dealing with one’s past is an immensely complex process, which can only be done by the leaders and citizens of a given country. Foreigners generally have little influence on it.

Turkey’s strong reaction will not make the U.S., many European states, or Russia change their views on the Armenian genocide. On April 26, Turkey’s president declared “we now need to put aside our disagreements and look at what steps we can take from now on”, signaling a willingness to move on.

Therefore, in the short-term, a tacit “agree to disagree” acknowledgement is probably the best off-ramp. The political dialogue between Washington and Ankara will shift to other crucial subjects.

Indeed, U.S.-Turkey relations will likely be shaped by the security sector, not statements about the past. The central issue is the new situation created for the United States, for Europe, and for NATO as a whole, by Turkey’s deployment of Russian-made S400 missiles.

For all the talk of Ankara’s freedom in striking a balance between East and West—meaning not being “locked” in the transatlantic alliance and being free to procure weapons from whomever it decides—the stark reality is that the S400 purchase has provided Russia with three major strategic benefits.

First, it prevents a permanent deployment of U.S.-made Patriot missiles on its southern flank.

Second, it eliminates the prospect of seeing up to 120 F35 stealth aircraft deployed by Turkey—one hundred F35 on land bases, twenty F35b on the Anadolu helicopter carrier—which would have constituted an ominous challenge on its southern flank.

And third, it obliges NATO to reconsider its missile defense architecture, with Turkey’s air force being split between conventional units linked to NATO and missile defense units linked, in one way or another, to Russia.

From the standpoint of Russia, which often invokes the risk if a “NATO encirclement,” these are momentous achievements.

For Turkey, seeing its air force deprived of so many advanced stealth fighters and its military industry lose billions of dollars of subcontracting business is a massive failure. It affects the country’s standing as a military power and as a high-technology center.

Viewed from a Western European and American security perspective, this new situation inevitably creates a significant loss of trust in Turkey, which is a major NATO partner. 

With its historical narrative being challenged as much as its strategic relationship with NATO, Ankara will need to find some rapprochement with a U.S. administration that puts principles and strategic issues so high up on its agenda.

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

Armenia’s Minister of Labor and Social Affairs resigns

Jirair Kafian

Save

Share

 12:48,

YEREVAN, APRIL 23, ARMENPRESS. Armenia’s Minister of Labor and Social Affairs Mesrop Arakelyan has announced his resignation today in a statement on social media.

“Dear compatriots, today I am stepping down as Minister of Labor and Social Affairs. I have assumed this responsibility in the post-war period absolutely for one purpose – to mitigate the social catastrophe that we faced as a result of the war unleashed by the Azerbaijani side against Artsakh”, he said.

Mr. Arakelyan, however, praised the fact that Artsakh is currently in stage of development programs and house-building.

“I want to thank my colleagues in Armenia and Artsakh for the cooperation. Peace to our united homeland”, the minister said.

Mesrop Arakelyan has been serving as Minister of Labor and Social Affairs since November 20, 2020.

 

Editing and Translating by Aneta Harutyunyan

It’s Russian peacekeepers that guarantee peace in Artsakh – Security Council Secretary of Armenia

Jirair Kafian

Save

Share

 18:08,

YEREVAN, APRIL 23, ARMENPRESS. Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia Armen Grigoryan noted that up till not Azerbaijan has never shown any sign that would allow to think that stability in the region is possible without peacekeepers, ARMENPRESS reports Grigoryan told ‘’Ria Novosti’’.

‘’At this moment there is peace in Artsakh thanks to the presence of the Russian peacekeepers. The issue of prolonging the mission of the peacekeepers in Artsakh will be possible to discuss more concretely when the mandate is near termination, but so far Azerbaijan has not shown any sign that would allow to think that regional peace is possible even without the peacekeepers’’, Grigoryan said.

He assessed the activities of the Russian peacekeepers in Artsakh effective.

Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute sets up task force to explore Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Jirair Kafian
News.am, Armenia
17:03, 21.04.2021

The Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute has set up a task force to explore the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as well as the acts of violence committed against Armenians in Nakhchivan during the 20th and 21st centuries. This is what Director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute Harutyun Marutyan told reporters today.

Presenting the activities carried out in 2020, Marutyan stated that the outcomes of the task group’s activities will be available in foreign languages.

“During the 44-day war [in Nagorno-Karabakh], we discovered that we have a serious problem with presenting Armenians’ issues to the academic community abroad in foreign languages, and this is exactly why we set up a task force to explore the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. The results will be announced soon,” Marutyan said and voiced hope that the task force would turn into a full-fledged research unit.