Author: Kalantarian Kevo

The Moscow Times
Jan 18 2015

In Armenia, Will Murders Bring Change to Ties With Russia?

By Marianna Grigoryan

A little over a year ago, the northwestern Armenian city of Gyumri,
home to Russia’s 102nd army base, welcomed Russian President Vladimir
Putin to town with pomp, circumstance and waving flags. Now protesters
in the town are trampling Russian flags underfoot instead.

Armenia’s inability to secure the custody of a Russian conscript
charged with the Jan. 12 murder of six members of a local family — the
youngest just two years old — contributed to this change of mood.
Although Armenian General Prosecutor Gevorg Kostanian has stated that
the defendant, Private Valery Permyakov, will face trial in Armenia,
which authority will conduct the trial remains unclear: A Russian
military tribunal at the 102nd base, where Permyakov is being held, or
an Armenian court.

The lack of a clear answer to this question is jeopardizing the strong
historical ties between Armenia, Moscow’s strongest ally in the South
Caucasus, and Russia, local analysts say.

Late on Jan. 15, hours after the Avetisian family’s funeral, clashes
with police broke out outside the Russian consulate in Gyumri as
hundreds of protesters tried to enter the building to demand that
Permyakov be handed over to Armenian law enforcement and tried in an
Armenian court.

At least 13 people reportedly were hospitalized as a result of the
scuffle, and around a dozen, including journalists and human rights
activists, were arrested.

Russia claims that it has the right to try Permyakov since he had
deserted from the Gyumri base. Armenian government representatives
have been allowed into the 102nd army base to confirm his presence in
a solitary confinement cell, RFE/RL reported. They have said that they
would pass on protesters’ concerns to Russian officials.

But many Armenians aren’t buying it. Families are arguably the most
sacred of social institutions in this tiny country of just under three
million people. That status exists elsewhere in the region too, but in
Armenia, the hard knocks survivor of war, alleged genocide and vast
migration, it exercises a particular pull.

Threats to families may come from neighboring Azerbaijan or Turkey,
the country’s traditional enemies, but are not expected to come from
Russia, Armenia’s longtime bodyguard.

For 65-year-old engineer Hrant Hambardzumian, the fact that the
Armenian government does not collect a fee from Russia for its Gyumri
base and paid it 20.5 million drams (about $50,000) in November for
incurred expenses makes the murder of the Avetisian family an insult
as well as a tragedy.

“Is this the security promised by the government, when your family is
slaughtered while sleeping at home?” scoffed Hambardzumian, a resident
of the capital, Yerevan.

“This is a fight for personal security,” commented human rights
activist Artur Sakunts, an outspoken government critic. “This is a
case when everyone feels threatened in their own homes, in their own
country.”

That sense of insecurity ultimately could lead to a change in
Armenians’ receptiveness toward a tight strategic partnership with
Russia, predicted Richard Giragosian, director of Yerevan’s Regional
Studies Center. “[I]t seems clear that this incident and the way the
Russian military handles it, may become a turning point for the
traditionally loyal and subservient Russian ally, Armenia,” he said.

The incident in Gyumri is not the first, however. In 1999, two drunken
Russian servicemen based at Gyumri, Denis Popov and Alexander Kamenev,
opened fire on random passers-by, killing at least two people and
injuring another ten. Then, the two men were tried in Armenia, where
Popov was sentenced to 14 years in prison and Kamenev to 15.

Whether or not the two served their entire terms in Armenia is
unclear. In an interview published on Jan. 16 with News.am, Popov’s
lawyer, Tamara Yailoian claimed that her former client had been
transferred to Russia “after two to three years,” and, “we later
learned, set free.”

Russian officials were not immediately available to comment on her allegations.

Russia’s ambassador to Armenia, Ivan Volynkin, has pledged an
“objective” investigation into the Avetisians’ murders, but called on
locals not to “politicize” their deaths, the state-run Russian news
agency TASS reported.

The spokesperson for the ruling Republican Party of Armenia, Eduard
Sharmazanov, ducking accusations that Yerevan fears Moscow, has
implied the same.

“A tragedy has occurred, and we should not be looking for enemies
[involved] in it in our country,” Sharmazanov said, Tert.am reported.
“It does not stem from the people’s interests.”

But with officials otherwise mute (“as mute as fish,” said
Hambardzumian), some see the government’s statements as intended
primarily to serve their own interests rather than to secure a trial
for Permyakov in an Armenian court.

Anger over the Gyumri murders is building on wariness about Armenia’s
economic ties with Russia; namely, the loss of remittances from
migrants there after the sharp drop in the ruble’s value in 2014, and
the subsequent spike in retail prices in Armenia. The downturn
occurred just as Armenia was preparing to enter Moscow’s Eurasian
Economic Union on Jan. 2.

But Russian Ambassador Volynkin emphasized that Armenian-Russian ties
will survive this downturn.

Some Armenian analysts agree. “The emotional must be separated from
the military-political” in evaluating Yerevan’s relationship with
Russia, advised Sergei Minasian, head of the political studies program
at Yerevan’s Caucasus Institute.

While Russia does not pay Yerevan for use of the Gyumri base, it does
sell Armenia gas, weapons and military material at below-market
prices, Minasian noted.

That’s not enough to convince Ruben Mehrabian, an analyst at the
Armenian Center for National and International Studies. Relations
between Armenia and Russia are now so “deformed and ugly,” he
commented, that they “have to be recalibrated.”

ITAR-TASS, Russia
January 17, 2015 Saturday 08:01 PM GMT+4

Russian soldier’s crime should not influence Yerevan’s relations with
Moscow – consul general

GYUMRI January 17.

. A crime committed by a Russian serviceman in Armenia should not
influence the relationship between Yerevan and Moscow, Russian Consul
General to Armenia’s second largest city, Gyumri, Yevgeny Konyshev
told TASS on Saturday

“A good dialogue has been put on track between our countries, the
relations are on the rise and results of the interregional
co-operation are high, too,” Konyshev said. “We maintain constant,
personal human contacts with the regional government, the Gyumri
mayor’s office, representatives of Armenia’s government, the police
and the public.”

He believes the tragedy “should not have the slightest negative impact
on our /Russian-Armenian/ relations.”

“Certain forces and certain states are fuelling the situation so as to
harm the relationship between Russia and Armenia,” Konyshev said
adding “sensible people understand the friendly ties between Russia
and Armenia remain unbreakable and the wedge cannot be driven by any
means into the monolith of friendship and alliance of Armenia and
Russia.”

“It’s our common grief, for which there are no words,” he said. “We
are sympathetic, compassionate, we are mourning with the Armenians”
regarding it as “the deepest tragedy and a heinous crime.”

“Those involved or guilty in the crime must be punished severely to
the full effect of the law,” the Russian consul said.

Also, he thanked to government of Shirak province, where the crime had
been committed, and to the local law enforcers for ensuring security
of the Russian Consulate in Gyumri during riots. Konyshev expressed
his gratitude to the Armenian police officers, “who were injured in
aggressive acts of uncontrolled crowd at the Russian Consulate
General,” and added that the consulate maintained its routine
operations in spite of the events.

On Monday, a soldier of the Russian military base in Armenia
identified as Private Valery Permyakov without permission had deserted
his post with arms and cartridges. Later on, he shot dead a local
family of six in their home in Gyumri.

On Thursday a crowd clashed with the police near the building of the
Russian Consulate General in the city. As a result, 12 got injuries,
including three law enforcers. –0-mil/kle

ost-idolized-by-hitler.html

The 20th-Century Dictator Most Idolized by Hitler

Historians may credit Mussolini with inspiring Hitler’s rise to power, but
the despot called a different contemporary his `shining star.’

Adolf Hitler’s obsessions, for he was a man prone to unhealthy fixations,
were dangerous for the world – whether with himself, with art school, with his
dreams of grandeur, with Eva Braun, with his hatred of Jews – or, more
obscurely, with Turkey.

To say that the roots of the Third Reich’s rise have been thoroughly
examined would be an understatement. Yet one element of Hitler’s power grab
has largely been neglected – the importance of Turkey and Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk (or as Hitler called him, his `shining star’) on the Führer’s
thinking.

In his exhaustively researched new book, Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination,
Stefan Ihrig charts the outsized role that Atatürk and the New Turkey played
in the minds of Germany’s Weimar-era far right – an influence that extended
through the Nazi years. The Turkish Revolution was the most hotly-debated
foreign issue in the early 1920’s, and not only did the Nazis model
themselves after the Turkish National Movement, but Nazi leaders from Hitler
and Goebbels were personally entranced by everything Atatürk did.

In the aftermath of World War I, Germans – conservatives in particular – became
consumed with the idea that they had been unfairly treated at the Paris
Peace Conference (`raped’ is a word they often used), and stabbed in the
back by supine bureaucrats and minorities in Berlin. Yet even as the Germans
wallowed in bitter self-pity, another defeated superpower underwent a
dramatic turnaround.

When the last vestiges of the Ottoman Empire were dismantled by the Allies
in the Treaty of Sèvres, modern-day Turkey was also chopped up, with large
portions going to Greece and Armenia, as well as major powers like Britain,
Italy, and France. However, beginning in 1919, Turkish nationalists – led by
Atatürk in Ankara – transformed from beleaguered underdogs into a determined
force that beat back the Greeks, French, and Armenians on multiple fronts.
Over a tough few years, they defeated the seemingly invincible forces
arrayed against them – and, more importantly, they were able to negotiate a
new treaty, the Treaty of Lausanne, in 1923, which established modern
Turkey.

`In the eyes of a desperate and desolate Germany,’ writes Ihrig, `this was a
nationalist dream come true, or rather something like hyper-national
pornography.’

Nazi texts proclaimed that the annihilation or expulsion of the Armenians
was a `compelling necessity.’

On June 29, 1919, German newspapers announced the previous day’s signing of
the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I and forced Germany to pay
reparations and concede territory. Just two days later, the papers began
what can only be described as a love affair with Mustafa Kemal Pasha (later
Atatürk). Coverage of Turkey and its swashbuckling leader would fill
Germany’s daily and weekly newspapers.

Over the next four and a half years, the conservative paper Kreuzzeitung
would run a total of 2,200 articles, items, and reports on Turkey. The
Nazi-affiliated Heimatland gave one-eighth of its space each week, from
September 1 to October 15, 1923, to features on Atatürk. Papers throughout
the country would refer to Turkey as Germany’s `role model.’ Nationalist
opinion-makers would laud what they saw as Turkey’s strong negotiating
tactics – essentially `give us all that we want or we will continue to
fight’ – and decried German acquiescence to Allied terms. Some, like the
influential pastor and politician Max Maurenbrecher, even began to argue
that if Germans had fought for their freedom and borders like the Turks,
they would not be suffering the onerous conditions of Versailles. Turkey’s
revolution was a `revisionist-nationalist dream come true, even a fetishized
version of it, because it had been achieved by the sword, in the field, with
major battles, and many epic twists,’ writes Ihrig.

In fact, Ihrig says, Turkey was to become a sort of Fürstenspiegel for
conservative Germans. A Fürstenspiegel, or `mirror for princes,’ is a genre
of literature that uses a distant story (either geographically or
historically) to advocate for certain actions in the present. German
conservatives writing about Turkey would praise its active militant role in
forging its national destiny, and laud the ways in which Atatürk had come
from Ankara, not Constantinople, to lead a unified völkisch movement. That
Atatürk was from Ankara was important, because Hitler and his allies saw
their movement as having strength due its roots in Munich, not Berlin.
Later, Atatürk’s life story would be used to promote the importance of a
Führer.

The popular understanding of Hitler’s rise to power often points to the
influence of Mussolini and his march on Rome. In fact, argues Ihrig, `the
assumed role-model function of Mussolini, mainly deduced from the later
significance of Fascist Italy, has led many authors to overestimate Italy’
and as a result `few historians mention Atatürk as part of the general
pre-putsch atmosphere.’ In fact, as Ihrig points out, Mussolini called
himself `the Mustafa Kemal of a Milanese Ankara’ as he began his own
power-grab.

Ihrig argues that the two main Nazi papers, the Heimatland and Völkischer
Beobachter, were promoters of the `Turkish methods’ as early as 1921. The
Nazis argued that brute force had been necessary for Turkey’s independence,
and, insidiously, they highlighted Atatürk’s crackdown on ethnic minorities
and all of those who dissented. One Nazi ideologue, Hans Trobst, wrote
explicitly about Turkey’s `national purification’ of `bloodsuckers’ and
`parasites’ like Armenians and Greeks; Trobst was later invited to meet with
Hitler after the leader read his writings on Turkey. Ihrig notes that
Hitler’s secretary wrote to Trobst in Hitler’s name, declaring, `What you
have witnessed in Turkey is what we will have to do in the future as well in
order to liberate ourselves.’

This praising of Turkish aggression was laying the groundwork for Hitler’s
Beerhall Putsch, in which he attempted, and failed, to seize power in Munich
in 1923. It was only after it failed, Ihrig contends, that Hitler saw it as
necessary to go a more `legitimate’ political route like Mussolini. In his
final speech at his trial, Hitler would also point to Atatürk (and then
Mussolini) as examples of why his attempt at seizing power was not
treasonous – it was, he said, for `the gaining of liberty for his nation.’

A decade on, in 1933, Hitler would tell the Turkish daily Milliyet that
Atatürk was, in his words, `the greatest man of the century,’ and confess to
the paper that in the `dark 1920s’ `the successful struggle for liberation
that [Atatürk] led in order to create Turkey had given him the confidence
that the National Socialist movement would be successful as well.’ Hitler
called the Turkish movement his `shining star.’ In 1938, on his birthday,
Hitler would tell journalists and politicians that `Atatürk was the first to
show that it is possible to mobilize and regenerate the resources that a
country has lost. In this respect Atatürk was a teacher. Mussolini was his
first and I his second student.’

The German infatuation with Atatürk and Turkey waned after the Beerhall
Putsch. Years later, after the Nazis had gained power and launched their
wars, Turkey resurfaced again – Nazi propagandists pointed to Atatürk when
they argued for the necessity of a Führer who was loyally followed by his
people without question, when they pushed the need for just one political
party and the obligation of national sacrifice, and when they argued for the
necessity of cracking down on internal dissent in order to present a unified
front against outside enemies.

The German obsession was with Turkey was so rampant under the Nazis, in
fact, that the German Ministry for Propaganda actually complained in 1937
that positive coverage of Turkey was becoming `unbearable.’

Even as Hitler’s obsession with Turkey was strategic, it was also deeply
personal. While Ihrig does a thorough job of detailing Germany’s historic
ties to the Ottoman Empire – and even potentially its involvement in the
Armenian Genocide – it’s the Nazi leaders’ personal attachment to Turkey and
Atatürk that is especially fascinating.

Hitler, for instance, considered a bust of Atatürk by Josef Thorak to be
`one of his cherished possessions’ according to the Führer’s official
photographer Heinrich Hoffmann.

He also gave unique prominence to Turkey in issues of state. In 1934, just a
day before Hitler’s birthday, flags were lowered at the headquarters of the
SA (brownshirts) for the death of Turkish ambassador Kemalettin Sami
Pasha – and according to Ihrig, Hitler himself ordered what was essentially a
state funeral procession for the fallen diplomat.

When Atatürk died on November 10, his death dominated newspaper coverage in
Germany, despite the fact that it happened just a day after the infamous
Kristallnacht.

Joseph Goebbels was also a big fan of the Turkish leader. In 1937, Goebbels
wrote in his diary: `A nice flight. While traveling I finished reading the
book on Atatürk. A proud hero’s life. Totally admirable. I am happy!’ Then
on October 21, 1938, the same day Hitler ordered the breakup of
Czechoslovakia, Goebbels wrote that Atatürk’s death `would be an
irreplaceable loss.’ The Turkish leader’s health had been declining, but
days later, Goebbels would write in almost intimate language, `Atatürk’s
sickness is very serious. But his bear’s nature helps him to fight off an
early end at this point.’

The most obvious connection to make between the Nazis and Atatürk’s rule is,
of course, the tragedies of the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, which
took place before Atatürk came to power. While Ihrig deftly dodges a debate
over what exactly happened with Armenians in Turkey, he argues that as far
as the Nazis were concerned, what actually happened did not matter. They
believed that Armenians were the `Jews of the Orient’ and that their deaths
and suppression played a key part in the emergence of modern Turkey. In
speeches, Hitler would consistently refer to Armenians as being on the same
level as Jews, and in one article he declared the `wretched Armenian’ to be
`swine, corrupt, sordid, without conscience, like beggars, submissive, even
doglike.’ Nazi texts proclaimed that the annihilation or expulsion of the
Armenians was a `compelling necessity.’ The Nazis saw in Turkey what they
wanted to see, regardless of how Atatürk and his fellow Turks saw
themselves.

Ihrig’s book provides enough of a new angle on the Nazis to do the seemingly
impossible these days – break through the abundance of books on the topic. It
is full of fascinating issues not covered in this review, most notably the
ideological twists and turns that the Nazis went through in order to label
the Turks as Aryan. Readers who pick up the book should not be deterred by
the somewhat pedantic and dry opening chapter – the rest of the book is well
worth the read.

Today, Turkey in the German imagination has mostly to do with immigration,
assimilation, and EU membership. Ihrig has managed to show how the
relationship between these two centers of civilization is far deeper, and
far more fraught, than at first glance.

Standard Hollywood Double-Standard

Editorial, 17 January 2015

As we were about to “go to the press”, Russell Crowe’s “The Water
Diviner” began to make negative headlines in the Armenian media mostly
because of its false narrative. The execrable production, made to
coincide with the centenary of the Gallipoli disaster, is replete with
falsehood and propaganda.

Movie-makers–in Hollywood, California or Sydney, Australia–have the
unfortunate habit of consistently tampering with the truth. They try
to draw ticket buyers by making movies about the colorful lives of
historical figures such as Alexander the Great, the Borgias, Napoleon,
General Patton, etc., but when the same movie makers are criticized
for turning the biographies into cartoons, they sheepishly say that
they are in the entertainment business, not in the history business.
Crowe’s torturing of the truth seems to be a similar exercise.

Distortion of history isn’t the only crime of mainstream film makers.
While everyone–at least in the civilized world–boasts that freedom
of speech is a given in our societies, film makers often partner their
governments in spreading propaganda and falsehood. They are also
easily cowed by the same “democratic” governments to suppress the
truth for political expedience. “Standard Hollywood Double-Standard”
editorial focuses on several such high-profile cases.

Hollywood, the White House, the media world–and for all we know the
universe–were agog in December when North Korea expressed its
displeasure with an infantile movieland comedy concoction (“The
Interview”) which featured two American spies on a mission to kill
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The killer/spies were posing as
journalists.

In retaliation for the spoof, hackers supposedly loyal to North Korea
stole Sony Pictures Entertainment (the studio which produced the
comedy) leaked sensitive Sony emails to the world and threatened the
company with violence if it released the movie starring James Franco
and Seth Rogen.

When an intimidated Sony cancelled the release of the film, President
Obama accused North Korea of cyber vandalism. World-famous
luminaries, such as Tony Kushner and Neil Gaiman, were in high
dudgeon. So was Salman Rushdie who said so in his usual verbose way.
The great thespian Rob Lowe jumped into the stage declaiming on
Twitter: “Hollywood has done Neville Chamberlain proud today.” Rob
Lowe? Who knew?

While the hullaballoo was clawing serious time and space on the
airwaves and newsprint, no one mentioned that a movie featuring
assassins who pose as journalists could damage journalists and their
credibility, especially these days when ISIS chops the heads of
journalists suspected of being Western spies. But that’s a sidebar to
the story of the celluloid tsunami between the US and North Korea.

The “Interview” crisis continued for a week. A somber Eric Schultz,
speaking on behalf of President Obama, said: “…we are a country that
believes in free speech, and the right of artistic expression.” An
outraged American politician accused North Korea of muzzling free
speech and said: “We cannot be a society in which some dictator in
some place can start imposing censorship in the U.S.” A PEN petition
urged North Korea to reconsider the hack attack.

And then a not-so-mysterious retaliation: the North Korean Internet
went dark. Soon after, Sony announced “The Interview” would be
released after all. Sony CEO Michael Lynton said North Korea had
failed in its attempt to suppress free speech. Rogen tweeted: “The
people have spoken! Freedom has prevailed. Sony didn’t give up.” His
co-star Franco tweeted: “Victory!!!!!!! [Seven exclamation marks].The
PEOPLE and the PRESIDENT have spoken.”

The movie opened. Americans rushed to buy tickets. It was the
patriotic thing to do. All was well with the world and democracy.

In the rush to salvage America’s reputation as the land of the free
and secure the bottom line of a misguided B-movie, no one pointed out
that Hollywood, the White House, the media, are regularly selective on
matters of free speech.

Back in the mid-’30s at least twice Turkey stopped the production of
epic movies in Britain and in the United States. Sir Alexander Korda,
one of the more famous producers of the era, bought the film rights of
“Revolt in the Desert” about the adventures of Lawrence of Arabia.
British star Leslie Howard was to play Lawrence. The movie was to be
shot on the border between Saudi Arabia and Transjordan, with
Jerusalem standing in for Damascus. But then Turkey complained to the
Foreign Office about the proposed scenes of Turkish atrocities,
according to “The Golden Warrior: the Legend of Lawrence of Arabia” by
Lawrence James. “Korda was forced to bow to pressure from the censors
of the British Board of Film Control and the Foreign Office, which
were both anxious not to upset Turkey.”

About the same time Hollywood’s MGM bought the rights to Franz
Werfel’s bestselling “Forty Days of Musa Dagh”. A screenplay was
written and Clark Gable was to play the hero of the legendary Armenian
resistance to the Turkish Army on a mountain called Musa Dagh in
Antioch, now occupied by Turkey. That project was also shelved because
of threats by Turkey.

In recent years such superstars as Sylvester Stallone and Mel Gibson
have announced their intention to produce “Forty Days of Musa Dagh”,
but in both instances, the projects have evaporated in silence. One
doesn’t have to be Stephen Hawking to suspect the reason for the
demise of the projects. And yet there has been no outrage about Turkey
curbing the freedom of speech of Americans. Rob Lowe, Tony Kushner,
Neil Gaiman, Salman Rushdie, President Obama, PEN, CNN, et al have not
protested. Neville Chamberlain’s name hasn’t been taken in vain.

It’s business as usual in the West’s politics vis-à-vis Turkey. Turkey
can jail more journalists than other country. Turkey can deny US air
force access to Turkish bases forcing the US to use distant bases when
attacking ISIL. Turkey can protect ISIL butchers and buy stolen gas
from them. Turkey can ignore West’s trade sanctions against Iran.
Turkey can tangle with Israel. Turkey can hold military exercises with
China. Turkey can demonstrate extreme Islamist tendencies. Turkey can
be ruled by an authoritarian megalomaniac who attacks the West at the
drop of fez. Turkey can oppress its minorities. Turkey can punish
people for “insulting Turkishness” if they refer to the Genocide of
Armenians. Turkey can be the biggest investor in mad Khadafy’s Libya.
Turkey can hail Sudan’s genocidier Omar el-Bashir and twice play host
to him. Turkey can interfere in European elections. Turkey can be an
expressway for Afghan opium headed to Europe and for ISIL recruits
headed to Syria/Iraq. Turkey can go to bed with Hamas. Turkey can sign
multibillion dollar trade deals with Russia and try to scupper the
West’s sanctions against Russia. Turkey can invade and occupy Cyprus.
Turkey can illegally blockade Armenia, Turkey can…

To paraphrase the old song about Lola: Whatever Turkey wants, Turkey gets.

Until when?

When will the West wake up and realize that its NATO partner is a
hostile and rogue state par excellence?

ARMENIE
Les parents de la famille massacrée appellent à la remise du suspect
aux autorités arméniennes

Les parents de la famille massacrée à Gymri par un soldat russe pour
des raisons encore obscures ont déclaré qu’ils n’avaient pas participé
aux manifestations de jeudi, qui ont commencé quelques heures après
l’enterrement de Sérioja Avetisyan, sa femme, sa fille, son fils, sa
belle-fille et sa petite-fille de 2 ans. Ils ont en même temps soutenu
les appels des manifestants pour que le soldat russe inculpé, Valery
Permyakov, soit poursuivi par l’Arménie, a rapporté le service
arménien de RFE / RL (Azatutyun.am).

S’exprimant dans le cimetière de Gyumri au nom des parents, l’un des
cousins des Avetisyan, Samvel Hovannisian, a déclaré : “Nous exigeons
la justice. Nous exigeons que cette personne soit sévèrement
sanctionnée conformément aux lois de notre pays. Nous voulons
connaître les raisons de cette tragédie qui est pleuré non seulement
par nous mais aussi l’ensemble de la nation >>.

“Nous ne voulons pas non plus [qu’un tel crime] puisse être répétée
contre une autre famille”, a déclaré Hovannisian aux journalistes. “Si
Dieu le veut, ce sera le premier et le dernier crime de ce genre.”

Les autorités répressives arméniens ont été jusqu’ici réticents à
demander la garde de Permyakov, qui est gardé dans la base russe. le
Procureur général Gevorg Kostanian a seulement promis, sous la
pression des manifestants de Gyumri, de demander à son homologue russe
d’assurer que l’affaire sera transférée à la juridiction arménienne.

dimanche 18 janvier 2015,
Stéphane (c)armenews.com

TURKEY INVITES ARMENIAN PRESIDENT TO 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF GALLIPOLI WAR

Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Jan 16 2015

Deniz Zeyrek
ANKARA

As part of Ankara’s charm offensive ahead of the centennial anniversary
of the mass killings of Anatolian Armenians, President Recep Tayyip
Erdoðan has taken the unprecedented diplomatic step of extending an
invitation to Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan to ceremonies marking
the centenary of the Battle of Gallipoli in Canakkale in late April,
which coincides with the Armenian remembrance day.

With plans to hold massive ceremonies to mark the centenary of
the Battle of Gallipoli on April 23 and 24, Erdoðan has sent out
invitations to the leaders of 102 countries, including Armenian
President Sargsyan and U.S. President Barack Obama.

The ANZAC Troops (Australia-New Zealand Army Corps) disembarked onto
the shores of Canakkkale on April 25, 1915 in a bid to destroy Turkish
artillery units, but were defeated in bloody combat that continued
until December 1915. Ever since, Australians and New Zealanders
have commemorated the Battle of Gallipoli on April 25, on the date
of the first landing, and on Aug 6 to Aug 10, the second landing of
the ANZAC troops.

Marking the 100th anniversary of the battle for Turkey, Australia and
New Zealand, the Turkish government is set to organize ceremonies with
the participation of 8,500 Australians and 2,000 New Zealanders. The
U.K.’s Prince Charles and his two sons, and the prime ministers of
Australia and New Zealand, are expected to take part in commemorations.

A day before the April 24 ceremonies in Canakkale, the government
is planning to host a reception and a “Summit of Peace” in Istanbul
on April 23, the day when Turkey marks the 95th anniversary of the
foundation of the Turkish Parliament.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoðlu has signed invitation letters
to his counterparts, while President Erdoðan has sent letters to the
heads of state, accompanied by the message, “We would be delighted
to have you with us on the 100th anniversary commemorations of the
Battle of Gallipoli.”

Speaking to daily Hurriyet, a government official recalled that along
with the many other ethnic groups who fought in the ranks of the
Ottoman military, the Armenians also fought at Gallipoli. “We fought
together in Gallipoli. That’s why we have extended the invitation to
Sargsyan as well,” the official added.

However, April 24, 1915 is also the date of the Ottoman government’s
signing the Deportation Law that led to the deaths of up to a million
Armenians in their long march south from eastern Anatolia. Armenia and
the Armenian diaspora mark the day as the “anniversary of genocide”
committed by the Ottoman Empire, and are planning to hold massive
ceremonies on the centenary of the mass killings of their ancestors.

Sargsyan has invited world leaders to Yerevan on the same day, and
neither Sargsyan nor Obama are expected to accept Turkey’s invitation
to attend the ceremonies in Turkey.

January/16/2015

PRESIDENT ERDOGAN WELCOMES ALIYEV WITH OTTOMAN ‘RESURRECTION ANTHEM’

Daily Sabah, Turkey
Jan 15 2015

SENA ALKAN

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said yesterday, in a press conference
with his Azeri counterpart Ilham Aliyev in Ankara, that the High
Level Strategic Cooperation Council between the two countries will
further relations in the fields of politics, economics, military,
education and culture.

Highlighting the strong ties between Turkey and Azerbaijan, Erdogan
said that the political relations between the countries are “flawless”
and added: “I believe that both countries have this determination
[to boost the relations in all fields].”

Aliyev arrived in Turkey on Wednesday to hold bilateral talks with
the president and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu over political,
economic and cultural cooperation as well as trade volume between
the two countries and to attend the fifth meeting of the High level
Strategic Cooperation Council.

Erdogan welcomed Aliyev with an official ceremony at the Presidential
Palace in Ankara. Turkic soldiers, dressed like soldiers from the
16 Turkic empires throughout history, appeared at the ceremony. The
soldiers at the ceremony were arrayed with historical clothes such
as ornate helmets, spears, swords used by Turkic states in the history.

The 16 soldiers representing Turkic states were used for the first
time in a welcoming ceremony when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
paid an official visit to Turkey on January 12.

Another unprecedented incident happened at the ceremony when the
presidency’s band played the “Resurrection Anthem” for the first
time, which is about the establishment of the Ottoman Empire. The
anthem was played in the style of Erdogan’s popular election song
“Recep Tayyip Erdogan,” adapted from Kazahk song “Dombra” and played
during the March 30 local elections.

Deputy Prime Minister Yalcın Akdogan, Foreign Minister Mevlut
CavuÃ…~_oglu, Economy Minister Nihat Zeybekci, Energy Minister Taner
Yıldız and Communication Minister Lutfu Elvan attended the ceremony.

Touching on the regional issues in the press conference, Erdogan
said that he was informed by Aliyev over the resolution process of
the Nagorno-Karabakh issue between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

“Unfortunately, the OSCE Minsk Group has not taken concrete steps
[toward the issue] and has stalled the process. It is sad that despite
the international verdicts, they still try to stall the process. I
would like to express once again that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of
Azerbaijan and we [Turkey] will continue to support Azerbaijan
to resolve the issue by protecting the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan. On this issue that we continuously express our sensitivity,
Turkey’s stance is crystal clear.”

The Turkish leader said that trade volume between the countries has
reached $5 billion and the target is to reach $15 billion by 2023. “I
believe that both countries have this determination, this political
stability and we will achieve this,” Erdogan said.

The two leaders signed several agreements as part of the council to
develop the relations between the countries.

Accepted as sister countries, Turkey and Azerbaijan share the same
history and culture and the leaders reiterated in all platforms
that both countries have the utmost determination to further these
exemplary relations.

Erdogan paid his first foreign visit to Azerbaijan after he took the
presidential office on August 10 to show the unity and brotherhood
between the countries. Similarly, when the Justice and Development
Party (AK Party) won the local elections on March 30, Erdogan paid
a visit to Azerbaijan to enjoy the victory as part of a Turkish
political tradition.

GYUMRI PROTEST ACTION: POLICE USED SPECIAL TOOLS (PHOTO)

21:39, 15.01.2015

GYUMRI. – The police used special weapons against demonstrators at the
Russian Consulate in Armenia’s second largest city of Gyumri, where
a protest action continues. Information was confirmed for Armenian
News – NEWS.am by lrepresentatives of law enforcement agencies,
they but did not specify what kind of tools are applied.

The police formed a ring in front of the consulate, the demonstrators
are constantly trying to break it. Stones are thrown on the police,and
several people were injured in clashes.

Police confirmed that one person has been detained.

As reported earlier, six members of the Avetisyan family–including
a two-year-old girl–were shot dead, and a six-month-old baby boy
was wounded in their house in Gyumri on Monday. Valery Permyakov,
a serviceman of the 102nd Russian Military Base in the city, stands
accused in this crime. Permyakov was apprehended by the Russian
border guards near the Armenian-Turkish border, and he was arrested
on Wednesday. Valery Permyakov is held in custody at the Russian
military base.

MOSCOW’S DECISION ON PERMYAKOV

Lragir.am
Politics – 16 January 2015, 16:38

The Russian Expert Agency which expresses the Kremlin policy has
written about the crime in Gyumri: “Obviously, nobody will save Valery
Permyakov from justice. The crime is so outrageous and obvious that the
soldier’s guilt is not questioned. Yes, it is possible that Permyakov
will be ruled insane and sent to a psychiatric hospital but this
will not be an anti-Armenian plot either and humiliation all the more
so. Judging by the description of the murder, the soldier is mentally
healthy… The reality is that if by any chance the Kremlin decides to
save him from prosecution, it will make no difference which side will
be administering justice… Evidence is that the Armenian government
has itself refused to administer justice,” the Expert writes.

Everything seems to have been said, and developments confirm a
lot of things. The Russian side is not likely to hand Permyakov to
the Armenian side, and the Armenian law enforcement agencies have
obviously been told to justify this. This becomes obvious from the
posture and patchy statements.

Armenian law enforcement agencies are believed to have caught Permyakov
but then he appeared in the hands of the Russians. In order to make
this sound more or less substantial, it was announced that he had been
caught by Russian border guards at the Armenian-Turkish border. If
the Russian border guards caught him, it is logical that Permyakov
should be kept in the Russian base.

In fact, the Armenian law enforcement agencies have been deprived of
inquest by fresh traces, and time is a crucial factor in revealing
a crime.

It is suggested that Permyakov was not alone but was there to destruct,
but again there is nothing official and is again related to missing
the operative time.

The Russian press and public and political circles are cynical to
the extent of mocking the tragedy and shifting from the legal to the
political level, suggesting that there is an intention to provoke
anti-Russian sentiment.

This allows suggesting that this was a premeditated crime, and the
basis of the Armenian state and the living of the Armenian people.

At least, the developments that followed the tragedy and the
circumstances demonstrate this. The Russian side has a chance to dispel
doubts and hand Permyakov to the Armenian side through a transparent
investigation. The question is if Permyakov acted alone, and there
is no need to “save” him, why the Russian side refrains from this
simple and comprehensible move – handing him to the Armenian side.

Otherwise, questions occur. For example, will the Russians acknowledge
the sovereignty of Armenia in case they hand Permyakov to the Armenian
side, which is an insult to them?

Besides, judging by discussions on Russian social networks and forums
(and like in Armenia, in Russia they are mainly guided), is it a
shame to hand their criminal?

Does Permyakov know a lot and therefore they do not hand him to the
Armenian side?

Can anyone answer these questions?

In brief, as of today, the decision is not to hand Permyakov
to Armenian justice, he will be qualified as insane and sent
to a psychiatric hospital. Then they will let him go soon. “The
reality is that if by any chance the Kremlin decides to save him
from prosecution, it will make no difference which side will be
administering justice.” This is the political verdict.

GYUMRI TRAGEDY AFTERMATH: ACTIVISTS DENOUNCE HARSH POLICE RESPONSE TO PROTESTS, QUESTION MURDER INVESTIGATION

Society | 16.01.15 | 15:42

GOHAR ABRAHAMYAN
ArmeniaNow reporter

Several days after the brutal murder of a six-member family in Gyumri
discussions over the crime do not stop and unanswered questions
continue to cause protests in Armenia.

On Thursday till late night thousands of protesters in Gyumri stayed
up demanding that the suspect of the January 12 murder case, Russian
102nd military base serviceman Valeri Permyakov should be handed over
to Armenian law-enforcement bodies.

Yesterday at a protest in Gyumri there were clashes between the police
and protesters, as a result 26 are reported to have been hospitalized
and 16 among them – police officers, 21 others were taken to the
police station.

Meanwhile, in the evening in Liberty Square in Yerevan a spontaneous
protest took place in support of Gyumri protesters, however, there
again there were clashes between citizens and the police, and 38
people were arrested.

Rule of Law NGO co-founder Artak Zeynalyan on Friday told reporters
that people are indignant and protest against injustice.

“The version that the suspect was thirsty, that the gate was open
and he entered, threatened and started shooting everyone is not
convincing, and this viewpoint was heard while he was under Russian
control. It is suspicious that this is the motive, that’s why it is
very important for us that the neutral side runs the investigation,”
the human rights activist said.

Armenian Helsinki Committee leader Avetik Ishkhanyan said that
arresting those protesting in Liberty Square was another manifestation
of arbitrariness.

“In the evening, when people gathered in Liberty Square, around a
hundred people, they were peacefully watching videos from Gyumri,
speaking, without any calls, but a manhunt took place, those who were
holding the national flag were arrested first, there is no other word
but arbitrariness to describe this,” the human rights activist said.

Heritage Party MP Tevan Poghosyan addressed the case saying that if the
case was a legal one in the beginning, it is completely political now.

“It is political, because it became a problem of international
relations; at least one international treaty was violated in Armenia,
upon which any boarder guard was supposed to hand over any trespasser,
especially the one in civilian clothes and with no documents to the
Armenian side. We spoke much about the 4th, 5th and 8th provisions
of the treaty, but in that same treaty there is another provision as
well, which says that in case of such occurrences, when both sides
have problems, a joint committee is formed and the place is Yerevan,
together it is discussed, however, nothing is said about this,” the
MP said, adding that it is not clear for him why no mourning days are
declared, because in that case it might have been a message for the
people of how Armenia treats its citizens, and maybe our population
would have regained the feeling of trust.

Poghosyan also said that there is an initiative in the National
Assembly to call a joint meeting of four committees to try to discuss
all events and understand what should be done.