Author: Kajoyan Gevork

RUSSIAN PROSECUTOR HAS NOT RECEIVED A LETTER REGARDING PERMYAKOV’S TRANSFER

02.18.2015 13:53 epress.am

Russian Prosecutor General has not received a document from Armenian
Prosecutor General about transferring Valery Permyakov’s case to
Armenian law enforcement, notes an official response from the Russian
Prosecutor’s office to Zhoghovurd daily. Days earlier, the paper had
applied to the Russian Prosecutor General about the fate of Armenia’s
Prosecutor General’s alleged letter.

“According to the existing information, the Russian Prosecutor General
has not received a letter from the Republic of Armenia’s relevant
entities regarding the issue of transferring V.P. Permyakov to the
Armenian law enforcement” stated the response.

The Armenian Prosecutor General had released a statement on February
3rd of this year stating that he, RA Prosecutor General Gevorg
Kostanyan, had appealed to the Russian Prosecutor General Yury Chaika.

Five days earlier, the Union of Informed Citizens NGO applied to the
Administrative Court in order to receive a copy of the Prosecutor
General’s letter to their Russian colleague. The NGO claimed that
they had initially asked the Prosecutor’s office for the copy but
were left without unanswered.

LAKE SEVAN WATER BALANCE ELEMENT AND LEVEL CHANGE DYNAMICS FOR 2002-2014

13:03 February 17, 2015

Levon Vardanyan, Director of State Non-Commercial Organization

Recently a number of news websites have published articles about the
changes in Lake Sevan level, magnitude of lake balance components,
forecasts about the lake level, which are not substantiated.

The system observing water outlets from Lake Sevan and inflows through
Arpa-Sevan tunnel is equipped with up-to-date equipment; consequently,
there is no need for theoretical calculations and presentation of
observation figures, as the factual value of these components are
available.

Below is the change of the lake level for 2002-2014:

In 2002- 2004 the hydrometeorological conditions were favourable for
the increase in the lake level: 2007 and 2010 were also favourable
for the increase in the lake level, as these two years were favourable
from hydrological viewpoint.

2008, 2012, 2013 and 2014 experienced lack of water, 2012 and 2014
should be outlined, as the most lack of water was recorded in these
very years, resulted with large water outlets from the lake and
negative shift in the lake level.

Daily average volume of 1.4 million cum let out in irrigation seasons
is a completely substantiated value, as the water volume let out from
the lake has extremely different value in different hours of the day,
and nobody and nothing, but the equipment, was able to record the
water volume flowing through the tunnel.

What about the changes in Lake level, as of January 1, 2002 the lake
level made up 1896.32 meters, while as of 1 January 2015 the lake
level was 1900.13 meters, i.e. the total increase made up 3.81 meters,
where an increase of 2.47 meters made up for 2002-2007 and 1.34 meters
for 2008-2014 (including added 20 cm based on the specification of
land surveying).

During spring floods the highest indicators were recorded in 2007 and
2010, 2002-2004 also had high indicators, while 2008, 2012, 2013 and
2014 recorded low values.

What about forecasts in regard with changes in lake level during 2015,
it should be said that factors needed for the change in the lake level
– available snow reserve and hydrometereological conditions are more
favourable than for 2014, while the forecasts for the change in the
lake level will be presented in the third week of March.

RUSSIA IS IMPLEMENTING FIRST STAGE OF DESTRUCTION OF ARMENIA

Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments – 18 February 2015, 13:28

At different stages the Russian policy on the Karabakh issue has
been rather adaptive in style and content. For a long time Russia
preferred the status quo though it took the initiative from time to
time to balance the efforts of the United States to play a crucial
role in the decision making process.

Over many years, especially in 1995-2003 Russia needed the Karabakh
issue for pressure and influence on Azerbaijan, as well as on Armenia.

Russia often hinted to Azerbaijan that its position might change
unless Azerbaijan revises its.

These attempts have not resulted in essential changes in the
Russian-Armenian relations but it has caused lack of confidence in
the Russian policy among the Armenian public. Supply of weapons to
Azerbaijan and ignoring defense needs of Armenia are concerned.

Along with the development of the Russian-Armenian relations the
situation has changed, Armenia receives part of its required armament
from Russia. Russia has made considerable investments in Armenia,
primarily in the spheres of energy, transport and banking sector.

At the same time, in 2008 and in 2009 Russia’s attempts to
strengthen its foothold through activation of normalization of the
Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Azerbaijani relations caused lack of
confidence in the policy and intentions of Russia in Armenia.

Russia has practically thwarted the plans of construction of the
Iran-Armenia interregional gas pipeline, Iran-Armenia railway, a new
NPP, isolating Armenia and blocking the Iran-Europe strategy. Hence,
it became clear that Russia has adopted an overtly hostile policy
against Armenia.

However, Russia has started feeling inconvenient with the Karabakh
topic because it has stopped being an instrument of regional policy
and is increasingly becoming an instrument for the American policy.

Now Russia is faced with building “new”, reliable relations with
Azerbaijan, which would allow implementing the settlement of the
Karabakh issue outside the main process of settlement, i.e. the Minsk
Group process.

In autumn 2008 when the initiative of signing the treaties of Meindorf
was put forth, the United States made it clear that it will not accept
some “alternative” solutions for the Karabakh settlement which will not
be legitimate. It played a role in thwarting the Meindorf initiative
but Russia decided to return to this format in the early 2010.

Moscow understands very well that the process of settlement which is
based on the Principles of Madrid accepted by all the stakeholders
has failed. Therefore, the world centers of power will sooner or
later propose new format and new principles of settlement of the
Karabakh issue.

Russia does not intend to wait for new initiatives and is trying to
promote its own proposals, calculating that its relations with Armenia
and Azerbaijan are more important and meaningful than the relations
of these states with the United States and the Western community.

No doubt the Karabakh issue will generate more complications in the
Russian-Armenian relations if Russia proposes acceptable territorial
concessions. For the time being, building “new relations” with
Azerbaijan is concerned which are far from a clear understanding of
the prospect.

In 2010 Azerbaijan faced significant problems in its relations with
the United States and the EU, as well as Turkey, and Baku realized
that in 2008-2009 they missed the opportunity to gain advantage in
the process of the Karabakh settlement. Therefore, Baku will be more
attentive to Russia’s proposals which may become alternative options
of settlement of this problem.

There years ago Putin’s Alexander Dugin told me with unhidden
reluctance in the presence of an Armenian official that the Armenians
should not try to achieve the recognition of NKR by the United States.

He openly threatened Armenia with a disaster. In addition, it was
conveyed that Russia will never recognize NKR.

It should be noted that the current status of Karabakh fully fits
the interests of Russia.

Hence, Russia the ally is against the independence of NKR. The
existing lack of autonomy of NKR is part of Russia’s plans. Karabakh
does not have a political leadership, only some administration which
is devoid of any political rights. Of course, no state will recognize
the independence of a non-sovereign province.

The NKR administration understands its own situation very well and
leads a miserable existence, announcing that the purpose of NKR is
to achieve international recognition. It is not clear why this is
being done, and if anything is done at all to achieve recognition
of independence.

The statements that NKR must be a party in the talks are a showcase,
profanation. In reality, it has nothing to do with autonomy. It is
not even understood who is capable of negotiating on behalf of NKR.

If someone claims the right to negotiate on behalf of NKR, the purpose
will be ensuring the legitimacy of handing Karabakh to Azerbaijan.

Besides, it should be noted that neither Abkhazia, nor South Ossetia
had so many Russian agents. Who will recognize the independence of
such a province?

It is possible that the integration of Armenia with NATO would
lead to the “recognition of the rights of Karabakh”, afterwards the
recognition of its independence as a region which has a tendency for
independence. However, September 3 laid a gravestone on Karabakh,
and there is no doubt that this topic was absent in all the possible
discussions.

Armenia and Karabakh are mostly worried about proposals involving
peacekeepers in the conflict area. In addition, there is no doubt
that the peacekeepers will eventually play according to the rules of
the game that favors Azerbaijan, and it is impossible to overcome it
through any treaty.

Stationing Russian peacekeepers is but return of Karabakh under
Azerbaijan’s control which has become not only Russia’s real ally but
part of the “Russian world”. There is already such sad experience and
the Armenian leadership and public are pretending to have forgotten
the developments of the early 1990s.

The Russian troops have left a sad memory in Nagorno-Karabakh because
they were after infringement on the will and rights of the Armenian
population. The Russian troops clamped down on the Armenians twice,
in 1991 and 1992, organizing two punitive campaigns killing over 1000
Armenians, destroying over 40 Armenian settlements. They participated
in genocidal actions against the Armenians and displacing Armenians
from several regions of Karabakh.

No matter how the political and other conditions of the region change,
these developments cannot be ignored during the discussion of Russian
and other peacekeepers.

Supply of Russian weapons to Azerbaijan has made the latter think
that it has won the arms race and revenge is possible. This year was
a period of major military sabotages to which Russia did not react,
perceiving it as a condition of maintaining tension.

Putin has tried to appear as the one who curbs Azerbaijan’s aggression,
which ended up in escalation. If Russia wished, the border incidents
would stop over a night. Meanwhile, Russia needs escalation to have
an argument for stationing “peacekeepers”, i.e. occupation.

However, the Karabakh issue is the only temporary condition for Russia
to control the region. Russia is not interested in including Armenia
in the Eurasian project. All Russia is interested in is its isolation
which it has achieved.

Now Russia has appeared in international isolation and blockade,
which is a disaster for Armenia. Russia is getting close to Turkey and
Azerbaijan, and the loss of sovereignty and statehood of Armenia is
a premise. The Armenian society could not and did not want to react
to this, accepting capitulation. If the Western community failed
to withdraw Armenia from its state of vassal, the first stage of
destruction of the country will be ceding Karabakh to Azerbaijan.

This is the product of the Russian policy, which has become enemy
N 1 of the Armenian people. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh may feel
the end and repel this Russian policy.

The old legend of Karabakh is over, they have not invented the new
one. Who is the author of the new legend of Karabakh?

L’ARMENIE A ENREGISTRE DE REELS PROGRES DANS L’ETABLISSEMENT D’UNE SOCIETE CIVILE

ARMENIE

Hayastani Hanrapetoutioun et Hayots Achkhar reproduisent l’entretien
du sous-secretaire d’Etat americain pour l’Europe et l’Eurasie, Eric
Rubin, avec la radio la Voix de l’Amerique, dans lequel il affirme
que l’administration americaine etait consciente des difficultes
economiques auxquelles font face les pays de la region, y compris
l’Armenie, en raison des sanctions occidentales contre la Russie.

Washington doit travailler avec les autorites des pays concernes
afin de les aider a surmonter ces difficultes. Selon lui, le nouvel
Ambassadeur des Etats-Unis en Armenie, Richard Mills, qui prendra
ses fonctions dans les jours a venir, devait discuter de cette
question avec les autorites armeniennes. Parmi les priorites des
Etats-Unis en Armenie, le sous-secretaire d’Etat souligne la croissance
economique de l’Armenie, le developpement des echanges commerciaux et
des investissements, ainsi que le règlement du conflit du HK par la
voie pacifique. Il note que le nombre de personnes tuees et blessees
ces derniers temps dans la zone du conflit est le plus eleve depuis
la signature du cessez-le-feu. Washington ne considère pas cette
situation comme normale et est pret a travailler de manière intense
avec les deux Presidents. Par ailleurs, l’administration americaine
est prete a poursuivre son travail en vue de renforcer la democratie
en Armenie. M. Rubin croit que la formation d’une societe civile
est l’un des reels acquis de l’Armenie en matière de democratie au
cours des dernières annees : >, a-t-il dit.

Extrait de la revue de presse de l’Ambassade de France en Armenie en
date du 11 fevrier 2015

mercredi 18 fevrier 2015, Stephane (c)armenews.com

Talysh Identity and Geopolitics in the South Caucasus
By Bradley Jardine
2/17/2015

In Azerbaijan, a sensitive debate is being reintroduced to the
political foreground: `Did Talyshistan belong to the Azerbaijan
Republic? And if not can the current Republic of Azerbaijan
legitimately claim the region as its sovereign territory?’ Although
this seems like an academic question, debated in the confines of
history departments; the discussion is loaded with geopolitical
baggage. Due to the vast number of ethnic groups and language
communities living side by side in the small, mountainous region of
the Caucasus, local disputes are often manipulated by regional powers
keen to either exploit, or hinder the Caucasus’s potential as both an
energy producer and transit corridor linking European markets with
Asia. Still, it came as a surprise to many when last week, the Russian
news agency IAREX published an article by the Talysh nationalist
leader Fakhraddin Aboszoda. As one might expect, Aboszoda uses the
article to argue in favour of Talysh national self-determination,
claiming that Baku has no sovereign right to Talysh lands. But why are
his views suddenly gaining traction in Russian newspapers? In the
South Caucasus, historical narratives are often used as geopolitical
weapons.

Context

Azerbaijan’s Talysh population are a Persian-speaking community
concentrated in the south of the country along the Iranian border,
with their capital in Lenkoran. The group has a history of
Russian-backed resistance to Baku. The Bolsheviks established the
Mughan Soviet Republic as a communist puppet state in 1919, with the
raison d’état of undermining the democratic Musavat government of
Azerbaijan. In 1993 again, amidst the chaos of post-soviet political
transition, Russia backed a separatist movement: the `Talysh-Mughan
Autonomous Republic’ led by Alikram Humbatov. This pseudo-state was
quickly dissolved three months later during Heydar Aliyev’s
consolidation of power. Aboszoda is himself steeped in controversy
because of his involvement with this would-be separatist state, and
furthermore, he recently argued that Azerbaijan functioned as a
miniature empire. This debate was expanded, and backed by researchers
at the Kremlin-connected think-tank, the Russian Institute for
Strategic Studies (RISI). There’s no data showing how well his views
are supported or opposed by ordinary Talysh, yet this hasn’t stopped
the Russian Federation and Armenia from involving themselves in other
recent `provocations’ of Talysh minorities.

On November 29th 2014, a television station calling itself `The
National Television of Talyshton,’ began broadcasting in Azerbaijan
under the direction of Talysh poet Zabig Madozh. The station adopted
the Russian Cyrillic script, rather than the Perso-Arabic script
typical of Talysh nationalists. Aboszoda again made a controversial
appearance, being picked as a presenter. The other host was
Zakhiraddin Ibragimi, the chairman of the Committee for the Defence of
the Rights of the Talysh. Then, in February 2007 the former
Talysh-Mughan Republic’s President Alikram Hummatov, made a guest
appearance at Yerevan State University for an event concerning the
preservation of the Talysh language.

During his speech at the University Hummatov said that: `In
Azerbaijan, the Talysh are deprived of basic rights. We are not
respected; we are being extirpated, with a policy of assimilation
being implemented against us.’ Some of his concerns are warranted. For
example, in lowland communities that were once homogenous and are now
becoming multi-ethnic, Azerbaijani is becoming the favoured language
for wider communication. In particular, children’s proficiency in
Talysh is reportedly declining, except in remote, mountain villages.

The Azeri regime predictably responded by cracking down on outspoken
individuals in the Talysh community. The day after Hummatov visited
the Armenian occupied territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, the Azeri
government sentenced the editor of the newspaper `Tolyshi Sado (Voice
of the Talysh), Hilal Mammedov to five years in prison for trumped up
charges of `ethnic hatred’ and `drug-trafficking.’ This echoed an
earlier case in February 2007, when another of the paper’s editors,
Novruzali Mammadov, , was arrested and charged with treason, before
dying in 2009 due to lack of adequate prison healthcare.

More recently in 2013, a Talysh-language radio station, `The Voice of
Talyshstan,’ was launched in the Armenian occupied territories; a move
criticised by Baku as an attempt to stir up ethnic conflict. It began
broadcasting from the city of Shusha, in Nagorno-Karabakh on March
20th at the initiative of the Caucasus Centre of Iranian Studies at
the Modus Vivendi Centre. The station was founded by the Armenian
intellectual, Garnik Asatrian, who also established the Talysh Studies
program at Yerevan State University. Welcoming Hummatov, Asatrian
denied any accusations of ulterior motives behind Armenia’s interest
in Talysh minorities. Asatrian insisted that the department was merely
broadening its focus on Iranian studies. Armenian agitation of this
sort is nothing new. Armenian officials have a long history of denying
the existence of an `Azerbaijani’ nationality, altogether. But loose
arguments based on sweeping historically deterministic allegations
notwithstanding, the question still remains ` why now?

Geopolitical Anlaysis

Recently Paul Goble at the Jamestown Foundation wrote an article
questioning whether Moscow is putting the Talysh in play against
Azerbaijan. In it he suggests three possible reasons why Talysh
activists are rising in prominence. First, he suggests that by
supporting Talysh nationalist activities Moscow may be countering
Iranian activities in the region (i.e. the financing of Mosques).
Second, that Moscow might be trying to court Armenia after tensions
between the two countries have come to a fore over the murders in
Gyumri. Finally, that the `Kremlin’ is sending a `signal to Baku’ that
Russia has `resources within Azerbaijan’ and that they are ready to
use them `if Azerbaijan does not go along with Russia’s wishes.’

It’s worth exploring each one of these in-depth to see if they hold
any standing. Firstly, it should be noted that there’s an inordinate
amount of suspicion about Russian intentions vis-a-vis Azerbaijan and
an excessively exaggerated account of Russian abilities to act upon
them. The situation in Ukraine, and the recent treaty (read:
annexation) of South Ossetia has many analysts rightly unnerved. But
much of their suspicions regarding Russian relations with Azerbaijan
appear either fabricated or unduly influenced by the myriad of state
propaganda in the region. Unfortunately reporting on geopolitical
events of suspect importance in the Caucasus seems especially prone to
this particular brand of hyperbole.

Second, Azerbaijan is the key economic and military actor in the
Caucasus ` and Russia knows it. Its oil reserves have given the Aliyev
regime a degree of independence from outside meddling that Georgia and
Armenia simply haven’t been able to purchase. Since the completion of
the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, Azerbaijan’s GDP has grown year over
year at an unprecedented rate, reaching US $73 billion in 2013 (in
comparison: Georgia US $16 billion; Armenia US $10 billion). The
increase in oil revenues has sent Azeri military expenditures
skyrocketing to a record US $4.8 billion (mostly spent purchasing
Russian arms) and forced Armenia’s sickly economy to attempt to keep
pace. The situation is advantageous to Russia, because it keeps
Armenian national security dependent on Moscow’s support, and sends
capital flowing into the coffers of Russia’s military industrial
complex. With the Russian economy in a tailspin, it’s unlikely that
Putin would jeopardize lucrative arms deals with their southern
neighbor by overtly provoking some kind of Talysh separatist movement.
Further, Putin’s attempt to establish a Eurasian Economic Union would
be boosted significantly with Azeri cooperation and alienating the
regime seems like a sure way to jeopardize any future membership.

Third, unlike South Ossetia and Abkhazia ` there is no group in
Azerbaijan that would favor reunification with Russia and no sizable
Russian minority that Russia could intervene on behalf of. Quite the
contrary, Russia is already dealing with separatists in neighboring
Dagestan and Chechnya. Historically, Russia has favored stability in
the Caucasus to chaos, which is one reason why Russian authorities
tend to look favorably on the region’s strong-armed dictators who can
keep their constituent populations `in line.’ So given these
geopolitical considerations what are we to make of Goble’s three
propositions?

The first, that Russia is attempting to vie for influence vis-a-vis
Iran is not outside the realm of possibility. Moscow’s troubles with
Islamic separatists throughout the Caucasus are well-notedand it may
perceive Iran’s supposed support of the Talysh as threatening.
However, if this is indeed the case, it would seem that Russia’s best
option would be ensuring a stable secular regime in Baku ` not
attempting to undermine the one already there. The second possibility
that Russia is essentially performing a Public Relations coup in order
to repair relations with Armenia is questionable on several lines of
reasoning ` most important among them is the fact that much happened
before the Gyumri murders suggesting that if Russia is indeed involved
at all, there’s a longer strategy at play. The last possibility, that
Russia is sending a signal to Baku is the most difficult to refute but
also unlikely on several grounds which have already been mentioned `
namely that there are no sizable minorities in Azerbaijan that could
pose a significant threat to Baku.

With the aforementioned caution that much geopolitical analysis is
essentially guess work the following represents the most likely
scenario. In all probability there are many Talysh who are worried
about their loss of language and identity. There are equally likely
Talysh who resent the Aliyev regime’s brutal suppression of basic
freedoms ` just as there are many Azeris who feel the same way. Some
people within Armenia are undoubtedly stoking these concerns as part
of a much longer line of propaganda that tries to deny Azeri
nationality on questionable grounds. If Russia is indeed involved at
all, it is probably to provoke the Aliyev regime into further
crackdowns and human rights abuses. It’s partially Aliyev’s
willingness to continue to imprison journalists and anyone with
grievances that is keeping Azerbaijan from fully pursuing a Western
orientation (a la Georgia). Pursuing policies that don’t pose a real
threat to the stability of the regime, yet cause Aliyev to react in a
way that draws the ire of European and US institutions is an effective
strategy to keep Azerbaijan away from greater economic and political
integration with the West.

As is often the case, Russia’s relationship with post-Soviet minority
communities is both ambiguous, and highly pragmatic.

TURKISH-ARMENIANS’ ANSWER TO GULEN

Daily Sabah, Turkey
Feb 17 2015

MARKAR ESAYAN

On Feb. 11, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had a long meeting with
the administrators of more than 50 nongovernmental organizations at
Ankara Palas Hotel, a historic place located in Turkey’s capital. This
meeting was significant since all the participants were non-Muslims
living in Turkey. As an Armenian writer and journalist, I was also
present at the meeting. The scheduled duration of the meeting was
an hour and a half. However, the delegation of Davutoglu and some
ministers maintained it for over four hours. Each participant spoke
during the event. Both the positive developments and the problems
that need to be resolved were discussed.

The participants were the representatives of foundations, associations,
nongovernmental organizations and journals belonging to minority
communities in Turkey including Armenians, Jews, Roma, Syriacs,
Bulgarians and Maronites. They have the competence to represent
their own communities, address the state for years and are closely
acquainted with the issues of their communities. All of them shared
the excitement of the positive changes in favor of them that have taken
place within the last 13 years. Everyone expressed their appreciation
of this change and gave thanks for it. Davutoglu’s opening speech
was like a manifesto. Previously, a Christmas lunch was organized
for religious leaders of non-Muslim communities on Jan. 2.

And this was the civilian phase of this agenda.

Davutoglu said that they never accepted the segregationist and hostile
attitude of the former state regime – which used to boast of being
Kemalist, modern and secular – against non-Muslims, adding that they
did not discriminate between citizens regardless of their religion,
language or sect and always tried to reflect this concern in their
policies. The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government
overcame and reformed many segregationist practices inherited from
this former regime. Davutoglu sincerely pointed out that they did
not “grant” these reformations, but they saw them as a duty that was
supposed to be done already, adding that they did not expect anything
in return.

He also said it was not possible to approve or remain silent to the
bitter experiences such as the vandalisms targeting non-Muslims on
Sept. 6-7, 1955, underlining that they remembered those violent acts
with pain in their hearts. Davutoglu also indicated that one of the
most significant steps leading to the path for this positive change
was the official condolence message for the 1915 incidents issued
by then Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on April 23, 2014, which
was the indicator of a new period for Turkey, according to Davutoglu.

Davutoglu also issued a condolence message on Jan. 19, 2015, the
eighth year commemoration of the assassination of Hrant Dink.

All the participants took the floor respectively during the meeting.

Davutoglu, ministers and advisors noted each demand. Many rights
remaining from Ottoman times and guaranteed by the Lausanne Treaty were
violated during the Kemalist regime. The most devastating of them was
the practice of seizing property called the 1935 Declaration. With
this, the most valuable properties of 167 minority foundations were
seized, returned to their former owners without charge, or registered
as a state commodity. The target was to eradicate the foundations
that conserved the vital institutions of minorities.

The AK Party attempted to abolish this law in 2005, but it was blocked
by the “modern and secular” Republican People’s Party (CHP). In
2008, while the new law was being negotiated, Parliament witnessed
some embarrassing remarks by the opposition CHP and the Nationalist
Movement Party (MHP). They were saying the AK Party was “bothering
itself for the properties of Agop” in an insulting tone. When reforms
passed into law thanks to the AK Party’s votes, the CHP applied to
the Constitutional Court to repeal the legislation. In the name of
justice, a religious party was saying that “the state cannot steal
from its own citizens regardless of their identity or religion.

Rather, it is supposed to protect their interests.”

For this very reason, a majority of Armenians have been voting for the
AK Party for the last 13 years. For 99 years, we could not commemorate
the victims of the 1915 incidents on April 24 in our country due to
prohibitions. This ban was also lifted last year. Thanks to Erdogan’s
message of condolence, we were able to commemorate our losses in our
churches and cemeteries without fear or worry for the first time last
year. Fethullah Gulen was defeated in the power struggle he had with
the government. In order to cover the fact that they were actually
struggling for sovereignty, he claimed that non-Muslims, Kurds and
Alevis were suppressed in Turkey in an article he wrote for The New
York Times. His claims were simply misleading.

People with different beliefs have been experiencing the freest,
most dignified and glorious days of their lives during the period
of AK Party rule for the last 13 years. We have to stand behind this
truth in order to be fair. No matter what Gulen fights for, it is not
our fight. Manipulating and subverting the pain of April 24 and the
positive changes in recent years is the greatest form of disrespect
to our losses and acquisitions. It would be good to reveal the truth.

ARMENIAN ARTIST TO HAVE TURKISH PAVILLION AT VENICE BIENNALE

Daily Sabah, Turkey
Feb 17 2015

ZEYNEP ESRA KOCA

Turkish-born Armenian conceptual artist Sarkis Zabunyan’s work will
be showcased at the 56th edition of the International Venice Biennial
under the title ‘Respiro,’ which means ‘breath’ in Italian

Curated by Defne Ayas and coordinated by the Istanbul Foundation for
Culture and Arts (Ä°KSV), the installation of Sarkis, titled “Respiro”,
will be displayed at the Turkish Pavilion from May 9 to Nov. 22. The
Turkish Pavilion will be at the Sale d’Armi building in biennial’s
main venue Arsenale. The outline of the Turkish Pavilion of the 56th
International Venice Biennial was announced during a press conference
at the Salon Ä°KSV on Feb. 10 with the participation of artist Sarkis
and curator Defne Ayas. “We will go back to the beginning of time,
the first rainbow in other words, the first time when the light broke.

Instead of being fixed to certain moments in history, we will make
a claim to today and ancient history at the same time. We will
continue to transform as opposed to being stable, we will convert,
breathe and make people feel,” Sarkis said about the project during
the press conference.

Through his project, titled “Respiro,” which means “breath” in Italian,
the artist will arrange for the Turkish Pavilion to be set up as
a theater stage. Sarkis will put objects and visuals together with
thoughts and codes and continue to examine the idea of eternal dialogue
and the transformation that creates the essence of his artworks. The
installation will be composed of mirrors, stained glass boards and neon
lights that will be authentically produced for the venue alongside
a composition by Jacopo Baboni-Schilingi, which is influenced by the
seven colors of the rainbow, will complete the atmosphere.

Curator Ayas said that Sarkis is one of the rare artists who can
present their stance on art and the universe. “Considering the
uncertainties of the present day, Sarkis’ masterpiece is a fresh
suggestion to evaluate the history of humanity. ‘Respiro’ will give
a new momentum to art’s potential and offer a new space for us. The
architectural editing, signals that are encoded to stained glasses
and hidden frames will probably bother us at first however, we will
have a chance to recover with the light. Sarkis’ rich accumulations,
art’s power of transformation, its timelessness, are what give us
hope,” Ayas depicted the artist’s installation.

The announcement, which heralded that the installation of Sarkis,
who has been living in Paris since the 1960s, will represent Turkey
at the 56th International Venice Biennial, caused a stir in art
circles. It is important that an important artist like Sarkis will open
the permanent Turkish Pavilion in the biennial. On the other hand,
there is a political side about the artist’s installation. While the
disputes are heated over the 100th anniversary of 1915 incidents,
it is important for Turkey to host an Armenian-origin artist at its
national pavilion. Moreover, Sarkis will also participate in the
group exhibition at the Armenian Pavilion. During his interview with
Hurriyet, a Turkey-based daily newspaper, the artist said he had been
waiting for an invitation to the Turkish Pavilion for the last nine
years and since the invitation came in 2015, it has left a question
mark for many. “This is a first in history,” said Sarkis during
his interview. “There is no other artist who has experienced such
a situation. That is why I referred to Tarkovski during the press
conference. I saw how history got out of hand when brother killed
brother and how he tried to get everything right during his lifetime.

We have been stuck and locked for a century; we need to get loose
and breathe. This lock should open through the language of art. This
idea exploded in my mind. I felt that we need to work on this idea
to improve it.”

Sarkis also offered an insight into the effects of exile in 1915 on
his family, “Both my parents lived during those days. They experienced
the exile,” he said. According to Sarkis, his father stopped talking
after the exile. “He passed away without even uttering his mother’s
name.” Although the artist’s mother talked, his father lived all
through those times in silence. He lived as though he had no tongue.”

On the other hand, Sarkis believes that there is progress regarding the
Armenian issue. “The books that are being published and the existence
of Hrant Dink, the Armenian-origin journalist, who was assassinated,
are very important. Personally, I learnt so much from him,” the
artist said. He said he does not consider himself from the diaspora
because of his devotion to his mother. “My mother lived and died as
an Anatolian woman,” he noted, adding he still protects her house. He
went on, “Dink said ‘Diaspora is a huge village in Anatolia.’ This
is a beautiful image. This gives us hope. It does not mean that there
will not be other attacks against us. We should be prepared for these
kinds of things. We have never talked about these things among us
but I think there might be fanatical people.”

About Sarkis

Graduating from Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Sarkis introduced
his first exhibition in 1960 at the Istanbul Art Gallery.Although he
performed different forms of art throughout his career, he became an
installation icon at the end of the 1960s. The artist’s works have been
displayed at many exhibition venues, museums and biennials including
Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris, Guggenheim Museum in New York,
Musee d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Kunst-und-Austellungshalle
in Bonn, Germany, Louvre Museum in Paris, Bode Museum in Germany’s
capital city Berlin) and Kunsthalle Dusseldorf.

NO RECORD OF AGGRESSION AGAINST NON-MUSLIMS IN IRAN: LEADER

Mehr News, Iran
Feb 17 2015

TEHRAN, Feb. 17 (MNA) – Iran’s Leader, while pointing to the situation
of Muslims in the West, expressed his regret over the lack of safety
in Western countries.

Iran’s Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei made the remarks in
a meeting with representatives of religious minorities at Iranian
Parliament.

Addressing the representatives, Ayatollah Khamenei said, we have
learned from Islam to treat the followers of other religions with
“fairness and justice”.

“Today World powers and governments which claim justice do not observe
any fairness except within the bounds of their narrow, limited and
cruel policies,” Iran’s Leader underlined.

He added that what is at issue now is not why Muslims do not have
freedom in many of these countries, but why they do not have safety!

Ayatollah Khamenei pointed to the Hollywood-made film American Sniper
as an example and said it encourages Christian or non-Muslim youngsters
to harass and offend the Muslims as far as they could.

This approach is not favored by Islam which believes in fairness,
the Leader emphasized.

I often visit Armenian and Assyrian Martyrs homes, Leader said,
stressing their commitment to their country.

“I remember a number of Armenian Christians came to Ahwaz during the
Imposed War to help and serve for their country,” Leader emphasized.

Pointing to Iran’s justice towards non-Muslims, Ayatollah Khamenei
stressed the need to show the world that Islamic Republic of Iran is
so tolerant towards non-Muslims.

The Leader pointed to the lack of similar behaviors towards Muslims
in countries which claim to defend human rights, including the US,
stressing that after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran
in 1979, there has been no record of aggression by Muslims against
non-Muslims.

WORDPLAY: HOW HOLOCAUST INFLAMED OUR LANGUAGE

Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
Feb 17 2015

Books
David Astle

Holocaust caused an unholy row in Parliament this month. Prime
Minister Tony Abbott summoned the noun to describe Labor’s lollygagging
over submarine contracts: “There was a holocaust of jobs in defence
industries under member opposite.”

To be fair to the PM, he promptly withdrew his remark, apologising for
any offence. Going by the media meltdown, that offence was palpable.

Forums erupted, intensified no doubt by the recent anniversary of
the Auschwitz liberation, some 70 years ago.

While the rhetoric was gauche, the analogy regrettable, the same gaffe
has lent us a chance to delve deeper into the word, to understand
how it’s come to be such a sacrament.

Say the word in isolation, and almost every listener will link
holocaust to the murder of six million Jews during World War II. Even
without a capital H, that brutality has become the word’s foremost
association.

Advertisement

Dictionaries, however, tend to offer the older definition first.

Originally holocaust implied a burnt offering, deriving from Greek
where holos means whole, and kaustos is a cousin of kauein – to burn,
our source of caustic and cauterise. A Bible translator named William
Tyndale hoisted the word into prominence in 1526.

The verse in focus was Mark 12:33. In the King James Version of 1611,
the wording went like this: “… and to love [his] neighbour as
himself is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” Yet
Tyndale lent the Sadducee’s remark a more purple shade, replacing
burnt offerings with holocausts.

In tragic irony, Tyndale himself was burnt at the stake for opposing
Henry VIII’s divorce in 1535, the word he’d revived from obscurity
going on to thrive for centuries to come. First as a sacrifice, and
later a widespread massacre. Winston Churchill himself described the
Armenian genocide of World War I as an “administrative holocaust” –
in 1915.

A decade later, F. Scott Fitzgerald commandeered the word in The
Great Gatsby. Without spoiling the plot, a certain body is found in
the garden, one more death to add to the toll – “and the holocaust
was complete”.

World War II changed the world, and the word, indelibly. What entered
the fray as a noun, fast emerged as a global lament. Auschwitz survivor
Elie Wiesel is deemed the writer to establish the association in
1963. Before then, the Jewish label for the Nazi savagery oscillated
between the Shoah (calamity) and the Churban (destruction).

Yet affirming the name took some time. The biggest obstacle was
the notion of atonement that underpinned the sacrificial sense. But
for Wiesel and others, the emphasis lay on those sacrificed, rather
than the Nazis, or so-called sacrificers. Come 1981, the grim nuance
arrived in mainstream dictionaries, its capital H one more tribute
to the victims.

Holocaust is not alone among nouns in possessing historical
sensitivity. Ground zero and pogrom have a similar potency, apartheid
and crucifixion, just as troubles with a capital T is a sacred
utterance in Belfast. Though for scale alone, holocaust has entered
its own exclusivity zone, as Mr Abbott was quick to see.

In our age of rage, as Richard King identifies our era in his book On
Offence, the sanctity surrounding the h-word has been a more recent
shift. I say this since three previous politicians – John Howard,
Bob Brown and Paul Keating – all enlisted the word separate from its
Jewish context, earning far less reproof. As a litmus test, Abbott’s
cheap shot was conclusive.

Not that the PM was nimble in his retraction, replacing holocaust with
a word as likely to rile a different audience. By strict definition,
decimation means the killing of one in ten, just as Romans murdered
a tenth of mutineers, or enemy prisoners. Unless Labor’s lull over
submarines wiped out 10 per cent of our defence forces, then the
Pedant Union demands an immediate correction.

‘ICE IS MELTING’: SARKISIAN, TSARUKYAN MEET

By Weekly Staff on February 17, 2015

YEREVAN (A.W.)–On Feb. 17, a meeting took place between Armenian
President Serge Sarkisian and Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP) leader
Gagik Tsarukyan. Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutyun
(ARF-D) Member of Parliament Aghvan Vardanyan told CivilNet that
the ARF-D has done everything in its power to find a solution to the
recent escalation in tensions between the two parties, in order to
ensure that the country is not faced with major consequences.

Vardanyan refused to comment on the outcome of the meeting and told
reporters that each side will release its own statement soon.

Armen Rustamyan

Following the meeting, ARF Bureau member Armen Rustamyan told 168.am.,
“We have continuously said that the edges need to be smoothed out,
that we are on the side of improving relations, and that we have
exerted our humble efforts in that regard. We are pleased that the
meeting has finally taken place, that communication is advancing,
and that the ice is melting,”

The meeting comes in the wake of rising tensions between the ruling
regime and the PAP. Sarkisian criticized Tsarukyan at a Republican
Party of Armenia (RPA) Council meeting on Feb. 12. After a session
of the Executive Council of the PAP the following day, Tsarukyan
responded to Sarkisian’s criticisms and called on the citizens of
Armenia to “prepare for struggle.”

Several members of PAP were arrested last night. Officers raided
the home of Parliament member (MP) Rustam Gasparyan and conducted a
thorough search, according to reports.

President Sarkisian and Gagik Tsarukyan (Photo: Slaq.am)

According to PAP MP Elinar Vartanyan, the Arabkir, Maralik, and
Shengavit district office directors of the party have also been
arrested, as has Artur Mamoyan, the Nor Nork district PAP office
director, on suspicion of carrying an unlicensed firearm.

ARF-D Bureau member and head of the party’s political faction,
Armen Rustamyan voiced his belief that the recent political tensions
have entered a new and dangerous stage and can have irreversible
repercussions for the country. “We could lose everything,” said
Rustamyan, in a recent interview, citing that the battle between the
PAP and the RPA confirm the ARF-D’s grave concerns about the political
landscape of the country.

Rustamyan had also confirmed that the ARF-D has been working hard
to bring together the two sides and broker an agreement. “Although I
will not give details about our efforts, I can say that we have been
using our contacts and hope to succeed,” Rustamyan told Yerkir.am.

The ARF-D is steadfast in its belief that constitutional reforms are
needed in the country. However, political conflicts and snap elections
will not solve the issue, according to Rustamyan. He believes the
only way conditions will change is if all sides come to the table
and discuss the issue of constitutional and electoral reform. “We
should make our demands clear to the regime. If there is unity in our
demands, then the authorities will not have any reason to deny us,”
said Rustamyan.

On Jan. 15, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly and member of the
RPA announced that his party is ready to discuss the ARF-D’s proposals
for constitutional reforms. “I have examined the proposals, and I must
say that the ARF-D did serious work. There are proposals that I agree
with, and there are proposals that can become a topic for discussion.

There might be proposals that the RPA won’t agree with, but the fact
remains that the [they] are written by professionals…in which the
interests of the state are placed above the interests of political
parties,” Sharmazanov explained.

According to Sharmazanov, the proposed constitutional reforms are
very important and worthy of consideration. “In this sense, I think
the Dashnaktsutyun’s proposals are worth discussing. Of course,
there are issues on which the RPA has its own views, but they are
issues that can be discussed. I’m certain that we can solve all those
issues through discussions,” he added.

Rustamyan explained that the ARF-D is not getting ready to join a
coalition with the RPA after President Sarkisian’s withdrawal of the
Turkey-Armenia protocols from Parliament. According to Rustamyan, the
recalling of the protocols was just one of seven demands the ARF-D has
presented to the government. “If there are real steps taken towards
the realization of those seven points, then we [the ARF-D] is ready
to co-operate with anyone ready to work with us, said Rustamyan. He
also urged members of all parties to join the ARF-D when they sit at
the bargaining table with authorities.