Turkey’s Foreign Ministry Has Circulated A Statement On Situation On

TURKEY’S FOREIGN MINISTRY HAS CIRCULATED A STATEMENT ON SITUATION ON ARMENIAN-AZERBAIJANI BORDER

19:04 . 06/06

Ankara has issued a statement on the situation on Armenian-Azerbaijani
border. The Turkish foreign ministry expressed concern on the tension,
in their formulation “of the intrusion of common borders” of Armenia
and Azerbaijan connected with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

According to the statement, “Turkey will continue its efforts in the
international grounds directed to the complete and comprehensive
settlement of the situation in the region. The continuation of
the present situation based on a sensitive and fragile balance in
the region, the regrettable human losses not only do not serve the
interests of any of the sides, but are also a reason for deepening
of the problems,” the Turkish foreign ministry said in the statement.

It urges interested parties and the international community to take
necessary measures for the peaceful settlement of the Karabakh issue.

Perhaps, in Ankara they are preparing the ground for raising Karabakh
issue during the visit of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tomorrow.

http://www.yerkirmedia.am/?act=news&lan=en&id=7636

ARS Establishes Fund To Assist Schools In Syria

ARS ESTABLISHES FUND TO ASSIST SCHOOLS IN SYRIA

ARMENPRESS
7 June, 2012
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, JUNE 7, ARMENPRESS: In order to provide financial assistance
to Armenian schools in Syria, the Armenian Relief Society Central
Executive Board formed the “Fund for Assistance to Syrian-Armenian
Schools’, reports Armenpress citing Asbarez.

“There is no doubt,” declared ARS Central Executive Board Member,
Zepure E. Reisian, “that the unfortunate incidents unraveling in Syria
have disrupted the community’s normal course of life. The ARS Central
Executive Board believes that securing the undisturbed continuity
of school life is the best guarantee of maintaining the normalcy of
daily existence for Armenian youngsters.”

As further explanation of the nature of the Fund, Mrs. Vicky
Marashlian, Chairperson of the ARS Central Executive Board, noted
that a while back the Society recognized that, as a consequence of
the events in Syria, the Armenian Community may suffer social and
financial instability. After deliberation, the Central Executive Board
concluded that the best approach for the ARS would be to concentrate on
helping the Syrian-Armenian schools by allotting funds for “tuitions
to needy students”, thus alleviating both the financial burden on
needy Syrian-Armenian families, and, at the same time, promoting the
continuity of the educational mission of the schools.

“The decision of the Central Executive Board to come up with such a
Fund is indeed laudable,” stated Anna Der Hagopian, Chairperson of
ARS Syria. “The economic crisis battering the country has inevitably
affected the Armenian community as well, and the number of families
and scholarship recipients receiving aid from the ARS Syria social
services has doubled over the past year. We are confident that until
next September, the ARS family will make every possible effort to
assist to the maximum the Syrian-Armenian educational institutions,
thus helping the community itself. We have no doubt, also, that
Armenian communities worldwide, alongside the global ARS entities,
will come to our assistance in other needs as they arise until we
finally come out of this crisis,” concluded Der Hagopian.

Karabakh: What New Proposals?

KARABAKH: WHAT NEW PROPOSALS?

Story from Lragir.am News:

Published: 12:26:36 – 07/06/2012

Those in Karabakh don’t understand what new proposals to the settlement
of the NKR conflict can there be if Azerbaijan keeps showing that it
is not going to fulfill its obligations.

After Azerbaijan has grossly violated the ceasefire regime, the
statements by the U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton on the new
approaches to the settlement of the Karabakh issue are out of place,
stated NKR press secretary David Babayan. “The U.S. should give a
more realistic assessment to the situation and change its position
on this issue, which, most likely, will happen”, said Babayan. He
thinks that the U.S. should pay more attention to the preservation of
the cease-fire regime, make pressure on Azerbaijan in this direction
and in this case, it is necessary to speak the language of force to
Azerbaijan. “Expression of force may be an adequate rough response by
the Armenian party, just like a clear reaction by the international
community”, he noted.

In turn, in an interview with news.am, member of the NKR Public
Council on foreign policies and security Masis Mayilyan noted that the
statements by the State Secretary are the recognition of unreality
of the former proposals, in particular the principles of Madrid and
its elements.

“The OSCE Minsk Group applies old methodology for the settlement of
conflicts, its approaches don’t reflect the modern international-legal
realities and the known precedents in the international relations. The
point is about a completely new situation which was forced after the
Kosovo recognition under the sponsorship of the greater part of the
Western countries, as well as the following recognition of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia by Russia. It is evident that the new approaches will be
based on new realities and will bring the peoples of the region closer
to the world co-existence and not to the war”, said Masis Mayilyan.

http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/politics26468.html

Le Message De Christophe Masse Aux Armeniens De France

LE MESSAGE DE CHRISTOPHE MASSE AUX ARMENIENS DE FRANCE
Spidermian, Ara

armenews.com
jeudi 7 juin 2012

Dimanche dernier Armenews consacrait sa “une” au meeting electoral
tenue la veille a Marseille par Valerie Boyer. Par souci d’equilibre
nous faisons droit a la demande de Christophe Masse son principal
rival dans la 1ère circonscription de Marseille qui souhaite egalement,
et legitimement, s’adresser a nos lecteurs.

COMMUNIQUE Christophe Masse adresse un message aux francais d’origine
armenienne.

Il reaffirme ses engagements sur la penalisation du negationnisme.

Il fixe le cap 2015 qui marquera le centenaire du genocide Christophe
Masse, candidat pour la 1ère circonscription de Marseille, publie une
video pour s’adresser a la communaute armenienne Rapporteur de la loi
du 12 octobre 2006, il renouvelle ses engagements sur la penalisation
du negationnisme.

Après 4 ans de blocage et de promesses non tenues, il deplore la
manoeuvre politicienne de l’UMP a quelques mois d’elections majeures,
dans un contexte irrite. Faite dans la hâte cette dernière tentative a
eu pour effet de semer la confusion dans l’opinion publique francaise
sur une cause pourtant si juste et si noble. Francois Hollande s’est
engage a reprendre ce dossier ” dans l’apaisement, dans la conciliation
et en meme temps, dans la volonte d’aboutir “.

Si les citoyens lui accordent leur confiance les dimanches 10 et 17
juin prochains, Christophe Masse sera en première ligne aux côtes du
President de la Republique pour porter ce projet de loi.

En fin d’entretien, Christophe Masse fixe le cap 2015. Cette date
qui se situera au coeur de la prochaine mandature resonne deja dans
toutes les consciences. 100 ans, 1 siècle après le genocide de 1915.

Christophe Masse considère que 2015 doit etre un butoir fixe a la
Turquie par la communaute internationale pour reconnaitre le Genocide.

La France et Marseille en particulier qui a accueilli les rescapes
du Genocide, devront effectuer des gestes de haute portee symbolique,
pour commemorer ce triste anniversaire.

S’il est depute Christophe Masse rassemblera toutes les energies pour
faire que 2015 soit une grande etape de la cause armenienne. Pour
qu’enfin ce peuple a l’histoire souvent tourmentee, retrouve justice,
dignite et apaisement.

Book: The Best Holocaust Novel Ever: Franz Werfel’s Classic The Fort

THE BEST HOLOCAUST NOVEL EVER: FRANZ WERFEL’S CLASSIC THE FORTY DAYS OF MUSA DAGH, ABOUT THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE, GETS A NEW TRANSLATION
By Liel Leibovitz

Tablet Magazine

June 5 2012

Summers in the Salzkammergut were the happiest times of the novelist
Franz Werfel’s young life. In Prague, he and his family were a minority
twice over-Jews in a Christian town, Germans amid the Czechs.

He remembered the days of rioting led by the Glovemakers’ Union
that the local authorities struggled for almost a week to put down;
Franz’s father, Rudolf, was the biggest glovemaker in town. It was
all the proof Werfel, then 7 years old, needed that he didn’t belong.

Things were different in the Salzkammergut forest, filled with the
scent of tree resin and thin Alpine air, droves of cousins and idle
days to fill with inventions. Franz wrote plays with biblical themes
and titles like Classical Philistines that were secretly meant to
insult his teachers and rivals at the gymnasium by casting them as
history’s goons and boobs. When his ink ran dry, he convinced his
sisters to play cowboys and Indians, saving for himself the role
of the helpless victim tied to the stake. And then, one afternoon,
when he was 15 years old, it rained.

It was dusk, and Franz and his sister Hanna were playing outside. When
the drizzle turned into a downpour, and lightning streaked the skies,
they ran for shelter in a nearby shack. They closed the door and
noticed that their pet kitten had run in after them and was shaking
off the raindrops. Thunder struck.

“My muscles went into spasms in the voluptuous experience of digging
into soft life,” he wrote later that year, “and my ears yearned for the
sharp outcry of a victim. … With treacherous tenderness I finally
picked up the kitten’s almost weightless body and obscured its eyes
with my thumbs. … And I pushed ever deeper until I felt warm liquid
run down my fingers and, with unprecedented pleasure, uttered small
cries through my clenched teeth. … Then I heard myself, whipped
into rage by thunder and lightning, cry out fearfully, ‘Dear God,
protect me from the Devil, God help us.’ ”

More, perhaps, than any other writer in recent memory, God and the
Devil seemed to have jointly guided Franz Werfel’s life. The former
gave him a keen eye and a tremendous sense of style, driving his dear
friend Kafka, Prague’s other famous native Franz, to state that when
he read Werfel’s first collection of poems, “I was going off my head
with enthusiasm.” The latter cursed him with a sulfurous personality
that led him to betray friends, abandon ideologies, denounce his
Judaism, reject his family, marry the blatantly anti-Semitic Alma
Mahler, seek to sidle up to the Nazis, and, only when the jackboots
came too close, flee to Hollywood and write silly screenplays until
his early death. But all of Werfel’s sad apostasy is dwarfed by his
singular achievement, The Forty Days of Musa Dagh, a novel about the
Armenian holocaust that Werfel wrote in 1933 and that is available now
in a new English-language translation from the publishing house of
David R. Godine. In nearly 1,000 pages, it tells an adventure story
of Armenian partisans fending off the Turks, but it also delivers a
stunning breadth of Armenian folklore, history, language, customs,
and politics. The Nazis, freshly in power in Berlin, were quick to
grasp that the book wasn’t only a work of historical fiction about
one genocide but also a clear allegory about the impending murder of
the Jews, which would soon cause Werfel to flee Europe for America.

***

Read in chronological order, Franz Werfel’s work leads through all the
dreams and nightmares that Europe had withstood in the first half of
the 20th century. It begins with a collection of hymns, grandiosely
titled The Friend of the World and containing lines like this one,
in his poem “To the Reader”: “My only wish is to be related to you,
O fellow human being!” The author of these lines was 21, a rotund
cafe-dweller who often entertained the crowds at his favorite haunt,
the Arco, by standing up and belting out arias by his beloved Verdi.

Young Werfel believed in the world and saw it as sunny and filled
with possibilities. The world, for the most part, did not feel the
same way about Werfel. His father insisted that literature was no
way for a respectable gentleman to make a living and dispatched
him to Hamburg to work at a friend’s import-export business. Werfel
pretended to be mentally challenged, spent his days at the office
doodling and laughing loudly, and was soon dismissed. He sent his
manuscript to the publisher Axel Juncker, who found it juvenile and
overly bombastic and summarily rejected it; it took a firm letter
from Werfel’s famous friend Max Brod to get Juncker to change his mind.

At work on new pieces when World War I broke out, Werfel enlisted
and served mainly as a telephone operator. Moving around the
Austro-Hungarian empire with his unit, he did his best, whenever
the occasion permitted, to abandon his barracks and rent a small
apartment where he could write without interruption. Eventually,
his admirers arranged for him to be transferred to the propaganda
ministry, where he would spend the rest of the war giving patriotic
speeches across the empire. Werfel, however, couldn’t help it;
before too long, he joined Martin Buber’s secret pacifist society,
re-imagined Euripides’ The Trojan Women as a contemporary antiwar play,
and infused his speeches with his socialist sympathies. “Comrades!” he
cried out at one such public talk in Switzerland, “that which today
calls itself art is just an iridescent blob of fat floating on top of
the capitalist broth.” Catching word of Werfel’s performances, his
commanders were displeased; he was reprimanded but never seriously
punished. And when the war ended and the empire crumbled and Vienna
was awash with the eddies of revolutionary politics, Werfel played
along, happy to cast his lot with the radicals.

Alma Mahler changed all that. The famous composer’s widow had a brief
and stormy affair with the painter Oskar Kokoschka before marrying
the celebrated Walter Gropius, the architect who would eventually
found the Bauhaus school. Werfel was introduced to Mahler, 11 years
his senior, by a mutual friend. The very first time he met her, he
serenaded her with his arias and recited his best poems as her husband
sat by her side. Nor did he care that the object of his infatuation
was openly and vocally anti-Semitic. Shortly after he had first met
her, Werfel began sending Alma Mahler impassioned letters, calling her
“my giver of life” and “keeper of my flame.”

The letters worked. Despite his weight, his thinning hair, his bulging
eyes, despite being young and loud and Jewish-or maybe because of
all these things-Mahler fell deeply in love with Werfel. Early on
in their acquaintance, she wrote in her diary that had she been two
decades younger, she would have abandoned everything and followed
her Franzl around. He was, she wrote, the “beloved of the gods.”

Mahler didn’t leave Gropius right away, but she spent more and more
of her time with Werfel, eventually installing him in Haus Mahler,
the country home her famous Jewish first husband had built as his
hillside retreat. Before too long, she was pregnant with Werfel’s
child. She tried to keep the whole thing secret from Gropius,
pretending the child was his, but was eventually discovered in the
middle of an impassioned telephone call with Werfel and had no choice
but to admit to everything. Gropius’ response says as much about his
nature as it does about the era, so easily given to romantic thrusts:
Rather than set out to destroy the man who had shamed him, Gropius
obtained all of Werfel’s books and, determining that he was a very
good poet, wrote him a letter praising him as “a genius of fate.”

Meanwhile, Werfel’s work was undergoing a change, influenced by
Mahler. She disliked socialism; he soon denounced his early views as
youthful misgivings. She found Judaism distasteful; he wrote such
works as Paul Among the Jews, a drama that sympathetically traced
the path that led Saul of Tarsus to become Saint Paul, and Barbara
or Piety, a play whose protagonist is a Jew revolted by his tradition
and deeply attracted to Christianity and to the figure of Christ.

It would be unfair to attribute Werfel’s change of heart to Alma Mahler
alone. As Peter Stephan Jungk notes in his exhaustive biography of
Werfel, the poet was deeply influenced by the Catholic nurse who had
raised him as a boy and had always felt a deep attraction to that
religion’s iconography and mythology. Holy ghosts, doomed saviors,
magic-these were things that Judaism lacked, and Werfel, hysterical,
romantic, couldn’t live without them. He also couldn’t live without
Alma Mahler, and by the time she divorced Gropius and agreed to marry
him, she had made it a condition of the betrothal that he abandon
his faith. On June 27, 1929, he showed up before an official clerk
of the state and stated, under oath, that he was resigning from the
Jewish community.

Werfel was ready for a long vacation. He and Alma loved the Middle
East, where Werfel in particular felt moved by being in proximity to
the birthplace of religion. They headed to the region once again and
stopped in Damascus. There, visiting a carpet-weaver’s shop, Werfel
was struck by “the miserable sight of maimed and famished-looking
refugee children,” their bony fingers barely strong enough to move the
machinery. Some prodding revealed that these were Armenians who had
survived the Turkish massacre. He interviewed witnesses, survivors,
and experts, and he heard one story that seized him immediately. It
told of 5,000 Armenians who retreated to the nearby Mountain of Moses,
or Musa Dagh, where they held off the Turkish onslaught, inflicting
much damage on the enemy before being miraculously rescued by the
French and British navies.

When he returned to Vienna, Werfel began working on telling the story
of the million who were murdered in the first act of state-organized
genocide in modern times and of the thousands who fought for their
lives and their dignity and prevailed. He visited archives, interviewed
witnesses, obtained diplomatic documents, and wrote furiously. In
between mad bouts of work-it was not uncommon for him to write until
well into the night-Werfel gave public readings, more and more of
which were now focused on his work-in-progress.

His new novel, he informed his audiences, wasn’t historical fiction.

It was an attempt to come to terms with the fact that “one of the
oldest and most venerable peoples of the world has been destroyed,
murdered, almost exterminated,” murdered, worst of all, not by
“warlike enemies but by their own countrymen.” The reference was
hardly lost on his listeners: As Werfel spoke, Adolf Hitler’s National
Socialist party was gathering political strength. In December of 1932,
Mahler accompanied Werfel to Breslau, where he was scheduled to give
another one of his talks. When they arrived at their hotel, they were
told that Hitler would be spending the night there as well. Curious,
Mahler installed herself in the lobby, hoping for a glimpse of the
man. Werfel went about his business, and when he returned to the hotel
he was told that the Nazi leader still hadn’t shown. Then, suddenly,
he did, walking nervously behind one of his SS goons. Mahler commented
that he looked like a frightened young boy; she asked Werfel what he
thought of Hitler, and he replied, “Unfortunately, not all that bad.”

>From Breslau, it was off to Italy to finish the novel, work that was
interrupted only by the occasional bad tiding of the Nazis gaining
more power back home. When the novel was finished, Werfel declared
it the best thing he’d ever written. He’d said the same thing before
about each one of his books; this time, he was right.

***

Musa Dagh is, to the contemporary reader, a curious book. At times
it reads like one of those Karl May adventure tales for boys Werfel
adored as a child, with fast-paced scenes of battles and bravery
under fire. At others, it slows down and devotes long passages to
detailed ethnographic descriptions of Armenian mourning customs or
the traditions of village life. Its protagonist is Gabriel Bagradian,
an Armenian who had left his community, moved to Paris, and married an
elegant French woman who was not altogether pleased with her husband’s
ethnicity; he, in other words, is Werfel himself. The author also cast
many of his family members and old friends from Prague as villagers
with whom Bagradian, visiting his native country on vacation with his
wife and son, reconnects. Surrounding these fictional manifestations
are historical figures: Djemal Pasha, Enver Pasha, and Talaat Pasha,
the leaders of the Young Turks Revolution, make an appearance, as does
Johannes Lepsius, a real-life German missionary on whose historical
accounts of the Armenian massacre Werfel strongly relied.

Werfel’s narration is weighted down by his predilection for bombastic
turns of phrase, but he impressively soars and dips in and out of
numerous characters’ consciousness, narrating the unfolding events
from various points of view. And just as some bit of symbolism begins
to feel too cumbersome, he delivers stunning passages about cruelty,
compassion, and the strange logic of extermination attempted on a very
large scale. Close your eyes for a moment after you read Lepsius’
account of the concentration camps built to contain the Armenians
fleeing the massacre, and it’s impossible not to imagine Dachau,
which at the time of the novel’s writing was nothing more than a
ghoulish future prospect. To ensure that the reader doesn’t walk
away with a burning hatred of Turks, however, Werfel took pains to
present many Turkish characters who found their government’s actions
revolting and who ached to help the slaughtered Armenians. Whether
these portraits owe more to the novelist’s artistic judgment or to
the Jew’s crippling fear of seeing German friends and neighbors swept
up by Nazism is for the reader to decide.

As Werfel was preparing the novel for print, reality pierced his
historical cocoon. His friend Heinrich Mann, the president of the
Prussian Academy of Literature, had signed a manifesto calling on
socialists, communists, and other left-wing parties to unite and
stop Hitler’s rise. Sensing the changing political tides, a number
of his fellow academy members forced Mann to resign. After Hitler
became chancellor, the academy’s new governing board required its
members to sign an oath of loyalty to the new regime, promising to
serve its ideology. Thomas Mann, Alfred Doblin, and several of the
academy’s other members, most of them Jews, refused to sign. Werfel
signed. The most likely reason, as his biographer Jungk suggests, was
his reluctance to jeopardize the future sales of Musa Dagh. Whatever
the reasoning, it proved misguided: Within days of signing the oath,
Werfel’s books, too, were burning in Berlin’s squares. He was dismissed
from the academy soon thereafter.

With the new laws forbidding any publicity for the work of a “burned
author,” copies of Musa Dagh nonetheless sold at a brisk pace when it
was finally released, in November of 1933. Critics outside of Germany
raved about Werfel’s accomplishment, with some comparing the work to
Tolstoy’s War and Peace. But its author was still jittery. Joseph
Goebbels, the minister of propaganda, had formed an association of
German writers, calling those writers “of German blood” to register
with his office and show their fealty. Incredibly, Werfel tried to
do just that, sending a letter and declaring, falsely, that “I have
always kept my distance from any political organization or activity.”

To support his cause, he enlisted the help of a few friends who had
risen in the ranks of Goebbels’ bureaucracy to vouch for his merit
as an upstanding citizen of the new Reich.

Goebbels’ response came early in 1934, in the form of a decree
banning Musa Dagh from being sold anywhere in Germany. “I have been
deleted from the book, and the books, of the living,” Werfel wrote his
mother-in-law, “and since I am, after all, a German author, I am now
suspended in empty space.” His sole comfort was a check for $20,000
from MGM, for the movie rights to Musa Dagh. Immediately after these
were acquired, Mehmed Ertegun, Turkey’s ambassador to the United
States, mounted a campaign to stop the movie from being made. “It
rekindles the Armenian question,” he told an MGM executive. “The
Armenian question is settled.” The Turkish press joined in on the
cause; identifying Werfel as a Jewish author and MGM as a Jewish-run
studio, some threatened that unless the production was halted,
Turkish Jews would suffer in retaliation. The project was scrapped.

>From this point on, Franz Werfel’s life became little more than
a literary footnote. He and Alma Mahler fled to France and then,
with the help of Varian Fry, to Hollywood, where his most notable
achievement was the Danny Kaye vehicle Me and the Colonel. On Aug. 26,
1945, as he was sitting at his desk, working, his heart stopped. His
funeral was a gathering of all of Germany’s artists-in-exile. Bruno
Walther played Bach and Schubert. Father Georg Moenius, a friend of
Werfel and Mahler’s, delivered a strange eulogy about baptism, which
led to the insistent rumor that Alma Mahler had her dead husband
posthumously baptized so that he could be buried as a Christian.

“Nothing,” her daughter Anna told Werfel’s biographer Jungk, “was
more important to her than to see that her Franzl didn’t go to meet
God as a Jew.”

Werfel died as he had lived, on the cusp between cultures, religions,
and ideologies, a human seismograph registering the turbulence that
devastated his continent and his people. We should remember him for
exploring, in his life as well as in his art, the full register of
human emotions, from the merciless to the sublime. Most of all, we
should remember him for Musa Dagh, his sadly forgotten work of genius.

And we should see book and author alike as an omen, warning us that as
history’s travesties are being written as novels, they are frequently
also reborn as news.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/101524/the-best-holocaust-novel-ever?all=1

Armenia Seeks Stronger EU Stance On Karabakh

ARMENIA SEEKS STRONGER EU STANCE ON KARABAKH
By Andrew Gardner

European Voice

June 5 2012

Call by Armenia’s prime minister follows reports of an Azeri incursion.

Armenia’s prime minister, Tigran Sargsyan, has called for the EU to
issue a three-point resolution to Azerbaijan in a bid to curb the
militarisation of the south Caucasus. At the end of a two-day visit to
Brussels (3-4 June), just two days after his re-appointment as prime
minister, Sargsyan told European Voice that the EU should draw up a
declaration stipulating that the festering dispute over the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh must be resolved peacefully, threatening sanctions
if force is used and setting out what those sanctions would be.

Sargsyan’s comments – when asked by European Voice what would be
the greatest contribution that the EU could make in the region in
the coming year – followed an incident early yesterday (3 June) in
which Armenia says that three of its soldiers were killed during an
incursion by Azeri soldiers in the Tavush region of north-eastern
Armenia, far from Nagorno-Karabakh.

According to agency reports, Azerbaijan’s defence ministry said the
soldiers had been shot by Armenian colleagues.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was in Armenia yesterday,
said that she was “very concerned about the danger of escalation of
tensions”. After another incident in the Tavush region in April, the
US, Russia and France – who are leading efforts to end the dispute
over Karabakh – called for an end to “such senseless acts”.

Sargsyan’s statement comes against the backdrop of years of heavy
defence spending by Azerbaijan and, to a substantially lesser degree,
by Armenia.

Sargsyan also claimed that Azerbaijan has been seeking to undermine
the work of the Minsk Group of countries, set up in 1992 by what is
now the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
to end the war and resolve the dispute.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute,
Azerbaijan increased military spending by 88% in 2011, the largest
increase in the world.

Sargsyan said that Armenia was strong enough to maintain a balance
of military power.

In 2010, Armenia signed an agreement with Russia that would allow
Russia to station troops in Armenia for 44 years.

Relations with the EU

Sargsyan was in Brussels for a gathering of national parties that
belong to the European People’s Party (EPP), a reflection of Armenian
parties’ deepening integration into European politics. Sargsyan’s
Republican Party of Armenia, whose leader is President Serzh Sargsyan,
became an observer of the EPP grouping in February, as did two other
parties. The Pan-Armenian National Movement has been a member of the
European Liberal Democrats movement since 2010.

Sargsyan’s visit, his first foreign trip since being named on 2 June as
prime minister by President Sargsyan, comes shortly before the latest
step in Armenia’s relationship with the EU: the start of negotiations
on a ‘deep and comprehensive free-trade agreement’ (DCFTA).

The talks, which will begin within two weeks, had been expected
to start in 2011, but were delayed when the EU demanded changes to
Armenia’s method of valuing imports and its tax on imported alcohol.

They are likely to take some time, with EU regulations on food safety a
particularly tricky challenge for Armenia. Sargsyan said these would
require new infrastructure in Armenia.

Armenia’s bid for closer relations with the EU potentially puts it
at cross-purposes with Russia, whose president, Vladimir Putin, has
indicated that he plans to step up efforts to establish a Eurasian
Union, a bloc of former Soviet states that could, in effect, act as
a counterpoint to the EU. Sargsyan emphasised, however, that he sees
Armenia’s relations with Russia and the EU as complementary.

Sargsyan said that Armenia did not have an interest in joining the
Eurasian Union, which was established in January 2010 and which will
later this year free the movement of trade, capital and workers across
its three member states – Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Last October,
Armenia signed a free-trade agreement with the three members of the
union, as well as Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova and Tajikistan, a deal
that he likened in nature to the EU’s DCFTA. Another element of the
Eurasian Union – a customs union – would be “pointless”, he said,
as Armenia does not have a border with the three countries.

A customs union with Russia would hamper Armenia’s efforts to integrate
its market with the EU, which in 2010 accounted for 32% of Armenia’s
trade, compared with 20.8% for Russia.

He foresaw “no fundamental change” in Armenia’s relationship with
Russia following Putin’s return to office, and dismissed suggestions
of coolness in the relationship between the Russian and Armenian
presidents caused partly by Serzh Sargsyan’s decision to give a medal
in 2009 to Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili. Months earlier,
in August 2008, Russia and Georgia fought a brief war after Georgian
forces entered the self-declared republic of South Ossetia.

“Such a high-level relationship cannot be conditioned by such a tiny
matter,” Sargsyan said.

Sargsyan’s Republican Party emerged with a strengthened mandate
from elections on 6 May, winning 44.3% of the vote and 70 seats in
the 131-member parliament, ten percentage points and seven seats
more than in 2007. Observers from the Organisation for Security and
Co-operation in Europe noted flaws in the elections, but praised its
competitiveness. The elections were seen as the best held in Armenia
in the 21 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In a speech at the Centre for European Policy Studies, Sargsyan,
who has been in office since 2008, spoke with some pride about his
government’s efforts to increase transparency and e-government. But
his emphasis was on the challenges ahead. Armenians are among the
“most unpleased” – discontented – people in the world, he said,
adding: “Their unpleasedness is the potential that will help us to
bridge the gap between our reality and our values.”

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2012/june/armenia-seeks-stronger-eu-stance-on-karabakh/74509.aspx

Azerbaijan Will Not Find Ways To Settle Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

AZERBAIJAN WILL NOT FIND WAYS TO SETTLE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT

Vestnik Kavkaza
June 5 2012
Russia

The settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be the top
theme for negotiations of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
as she stated at a meeting with Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov, 1news.az reports.

Clinton is on a visit from Armenia to Azerbaijan. Mammadyarov noted
that deaths of young people at the line of contacts aggravates the
problem.

Turkey’s Model Minority

TURKEY’S MODEL MINORITY

Canadian Jewish News

June 5 2012

A valued and protected model minority during the Ottoman Empire and
nfull citizens since the formation of a secular republic in 1923,
the Jews of Turkey have enjoyed equality and respect, but have had
to cope with periodic outbursts of xenophobia and racism.

Turkey, a pro-western state of 75 million inhabitants with the
second-largest Jewish community in the Muslim world after that of Iran,
treasures its centuries-long bond with Jews. As Turkish diplomat Ertan
Tezgor said, “We have quite tight relations with the Jewish people.”

Judging by the historic record, Jews have fared far better in Turkey
than Armenians or Greeks, whose grievances can fill a book.

The Jewish presence in Turkey can be traced back to antiquity, to
the Roman and Byzantine empires, when Greek-speaking Romaniote Jews
settled in Anatolia, Turkey’s heartland, and were eventually absorbed
by Sephardi Jews, who reached Ottoman lands from Spain under duress
in the 15th century.

Invited to the Ottoman Empire by the sultan, Mehmet II, Jews repaid
the favour by being exceedingly loyal and productive citizens. Like
all minorities, they lived within the framework of the millet system,
which organized non-Muslim communities on the basis of religion.

With the breakup of the remaining segments of the Ottoman Empire,
a cosmopolitan domain that reached deep into the Middle East and the
Balkans, the number of Jews declined precipitously, from several
hundred thousand in the 19th century to 80,000 by the conclusion
of Turkey’s war of national independence, which resulted in a
Muslim/Christian population exchange.

In modern Turkey, founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the revered father
of the nation, minorities, especially Greek and Armenian Christians,
were subjected to assimilationist policies and discrimination until
the 1950s, according to Istanbul historian Rifat Bali.

In Eastern Thrace, Turkey’s gateway to Europe, several thousand Jews
in towns such as Edirne and Canakkale were forcibly expelled in 1934
in a campaign of physical violence, psychological intimidation and
economic boycotts. The expulsions finally stopped when the central
government intervened and allowed Jews to return to their homes.

“It’s not clear who was behind all this,” said Bali. But right-wing
nationalists sympathetic to Nazi racial doctrines may have been among
the perpetrators.

In 1942, the Turkish government imposed a crippling wealth tax (Varlik
vergisi) on well-off citizens. Historians generally regard the punitive
tax, most keenly felt by Jews and Christians, as an attempt by the
government to stop war profiteering and to transfer wealth to the
Sunni majority.

Bali describes the tax, revoked in 1944, as a discriminatory and
arbitrary measure that blatantly violated the 1924 constitution. In
his view, the tax sent an unmistakable signal to minorities that they
had no future in Turkey.

In 1955, following reports that Ataturk’s ancestral home in Salonika
had been destroyed, anti-Greek riots erupted in the centre of Istanbul,
resulting in the destruction of numerous shops and homes.

Jews and Armenians were caught in the backwash of this pogrom.

Five decades on, Turkey has matured and now has “a positive attitude
to minorities,” said Bali. But due to the events of 1934, 1942 and
1955, the pull of Israel after 1948 and an outbreak of terrorism in
the 1970s, Turkey’s Jewish community has declined numerically.

About 18,000 Jews, all but 400 of whom are Sephardi Jews, reside in
Turkey today. Emigration is still a factor, with upwards of 150 Jews
making aliyah every year. By one estimate, there are 100,000 Jews of
Turkish origin in Israel.

By all accounts, the 1986 and 2003 bombings of Neve Shalom, the
biggest synagogue in Istanbul, did not cause a significant exodus of
Jews. The attacks, which were respectively perpetrated by Arab and
Turkish terrorists, claimed the lives of more than 40 Jews and Muslims.

Turkish Jews are largely concentrated in Istanbul, with much smaller
centres in Izmir, Bursa and Ankara. They possess an impressive range
of institutions, synagogues and schools, but these facilities are
increasingly difficult to maintain.

Demographic realities, notably an intermarriage rate ranging in
the vicinity of 25 per cent and an aging population in which deaths
outnumber births, are key problems in the community, said Izak Kolman,
an advisor to Chief Rabbi Isak Haleva.

He and others believe that Jewish population stability will be
assured by Turkey’s vibrant economy and by Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan’s decision to bring in a new constitution enshrining
human rights.

By local standards, Turkish Jews are fairly prosperous, being active
in business (particularly in the textile trade) and the professions.

Yet 200 families in Istanbul require food aid per month.

Traditionally, the civil service and the armed forces have been
informally off-limits to Jews and Christians. However, Turkish Foreign
Minister Ahmet Davutoglu recently declared that Jews should be members
of the diplomatic corps. Whether the new policy is merely tokenism
remains to be seen.

Jewish leaders here claim that antisemitism does not pose a problem
in daily life. But since most Muslim Turks have never met a Jew,
“you have fear and negative feelings,” noted Sami Herman, the
community’s president.

Antisemitic material is published in the ultra-nationalist and Islamic
press, Bali observed. “But the sentiments they express reflect opinion
in the street, and are not held by Turkish elites.”

Although Jews are well integrated into Turkish society, ethnocentric
Turks claim that only Muslims are real Turks, and that Jews are
foreigners (yabancis).

The Mavi Marmara incident of May 2010, during which Israeli commandos
stormed a Turkish ship trying to break Israel’s naval siege of the
Gaza Strip, may have contributed to the erroneous belief that Jews
are faux Turks. “Jews feared that their loyalty to Turkey would be
questioned,” said Bali. “But no one questioned their loyalty.”

By way of response, the Jewish community immediately issued an official
statement expressing sadness and sorrow over the loss of life. Much
to its relief, Erdogan issued a warning that anti-Israel feelings
should not be allowed to spill over into antisemitism.

“We felt a little stressed, but there has not been a long-term impact
on our community,” said Herman, observing that the Mavi Marmara affair
only affected Turkey’s bilateral relations with Israel.

Although Turkish Jews tend to be pro-Israel, citing historical and
cultural affinities with Israel, they tread carefully in public
discussions about Zionism.

“We’re not Zionists,” declared Herman. “Not at all. But for sure
Israel is very important for Jews.”

Herman’s colleague, Adil Anjel, put it more starkly: “In Turkey,
Zionism is a bad word, like saying you’re a racist.”

He added, “We are Turkish Jews who feel sympathetic toward Israel.”

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?q=node/90146

Hillary Clinton: Remarks At Universal Rights Award Ceremony

HILLARY CLINTON: REMARKS AT UNIVERSAL RIGHTS AWARD CEREMONY

Scoop.co.nz
June 5 2012
New Zealand

Tuesday, 5 June 2012, 11:42 am
Press Release: US State Department
Remarks at the Universal Rights Award Ceremony

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State

U.S. Embassy Yerevan
Yerevan, Armenia
June 4, 2012

Thank you very much, Ambassador, and it is such a pleasure to be
here in Yerevan at the U.S. Embassy. Let me acknowledge some of the
partners that the Ambassador was speaking about. Can you hear me?

Okay. I want to acknowledge the governments and organizations here:
the OSCE, the European Union, the British Embassy, the NGO Counterpart
International, all steadfast partners in the effort to promote and
protect human rights worldwide.

The men and women we honor here today have toiled and sacrificed to
make human rights a reality for the people of Armenia. Their stories
show us that solutions to big problems can start with the actions
of one or a few people. Change begins with a group of courageous
activists who fight to stop environmental degradation so Armenians
can live healthier lives, begins with journalists who raise awareness
about human rights violations, and a dedicated public servant who
pushes the police force to reform.

The United States knows from long experience that if you want to have
a stable, prosperous society, you need an accountable, effective
government, you need a dynamic, free economy, and you need a civil
society that supports the rights and dignity of all people. The United
States believes that accountable government and leaders are one of
the most important elements of successful societies.

So although we honor these men and women tonight for defending human
rights, we also acknowledge them as committed to building a stronger
Armenia. The United States will stand with those who defend the rights
of men and women, who work toward a future where every person can
live up to his or her God-given potential, and for democracy that
holds such great promise for Armenia’s future. The United States and
I personally believe strongly that Armenia can have a very bright
future filled with opportunities for all of your people.

So let us all keep working together to forge the partnerships that
carry us toward the goal of a time here in Armenia and around the
world where all people are given that chance and where governments
protect the rights of their people, look toward the future to determine
the best path forward, create peace, prosperity, and progress for
all. Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

Mrs. Clinton Lectures Georgia On Democracy – And Hedges Washington’s

MRS. CLINTON LECTURES GEORGIA ON DEMOCRACY – AND HEDGES WASHINGTON’S BETS THERE

The Voice of Russia
June 5 2012

Babich Dmitry Jun 5, 2012 16:37 Moscow Time

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton, in the course of her visit to Georgia,
reiterated American support for Tbilisi in its conflict with Moscow,
saying that Russian troops should return to their positions from the
period before the year 2008. However, the real intrigue of the visit
was much more complicated than this largely ritual statement.

For an outsider, Hillary Clinton’s visit to the three former Soviet
republics in the Caucuses – Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan – might
look like just another “regional tour,” since the three countries
are located next to each other, providing an opportunity to see many
capitals in a few days. But that is a deceptive impression. These three
countries have very different geopolitical orientations, different
political systems and pursue different goals in their relationships
with the United States. Georgia, the largest per capita recipient of
American financial aid and the largest per capita donor of “cannon
fodder” for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, wants more aid
to alleviate the losses connected to the policies of its pro-American
president Mikheil Saakashvili. Azerbaijan, still locked in a regional
“cold war” with Armenia over the Karabakh region, hopes that Washington
will help it reclaim that territory, lost in a bitter war with Armenia
in the early 1990s. Armenia’s wishes on Karabakh, as can easily be
guessed, are the exact opposite of Azerbaijan’s desires.

Feeling isolated because of Washington’s policy of encouraging
economic ties between Georgia and Turkey, Armenia’s second old foe,
Yerevan is rather apprehensive about American plans of “remaking”
the region. And of course, Armenia and Georgia are worried about the
looming danger of a war which the U.S. and its allies may start against
Iran. For economically isolated Armenia, Iran is an important economic
partner and Georgians cite Tehran’s threat to retaliate against any
country from where it would be attacked – even if the attackers are
not Georgians themselves, but American military to whom Saakashvili
gave a virtually unlimited access to Georgia’s territory.

Mrs. Clinton’s position, which includes both sticks and carrots,
is well known and has long proven its inability to resolve the
above mentioned problems. Pushing Armenia to let bygones be bygones
and start building a local economic “axis” with Turkey, Georgia and
even Azerbaijan, leaving Russia out of the region, is a rather futile
exercise on the part of Washington. Lecturing the locals on democracy
does not bring much in the way of real rapprochement in the value
systems of the United States and a patchwork of nations inhabiting
the ancient land of Transcaucuses.

“Constant abstract talks about democracy and human rights on the
part of American officials in many cases just irritate, for example,
Georgians,” said Felix Stanevsky, former Russian ambassador to
Georgia. “Such talks sound especially out of place from the people who
have a very vague understanding of the region’s history – Americans,
for example, normally do not know anything about the existence of
the ancient Abkhazian state, dismissing Abkhazia as just another
renegade Georgian province. But the locals pay lip service to American
values – not a surprising attitude in a region where people have
an experience of accommodating themselves to a number of various
“government cultures” – from Byzantium and Iran to Russia and now
the United States.”

It should be noted that Georgia is politically the most troublesome
ally for the U.S. in the region. For the moment, the problem is not
in Mikheil Saakashvili’s loyalty to the U.S. – in terms of flattering
rhetoric and participation in American “projects” for Afghanistan and
Iraq his loyalty has always been absolute. The problem is not even
in his penchant for local “victorious wars” – even Batumi, where Mrs.

Clinton is meeting Georgian officials and opposition figures, is the
capital of a region which was “reunited” with Georgia in 2004 at a
cost of a small armed conflict with its former leader Aslan Abashidze,
not to mention the 2008 war for South Ossetia.

The real problem is in Mr. Saakashvili’s tremendous ability to stir
conflict inside his own country. Almost all of his former allies
and subordinates – former Parliament speaker Nino Burdzhanadze,
former Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli, former defense minister Irakly
Okruashvili – have now joined the opposition to Saakashvili. Following
the above-described tradition of accommodating themselves to
foreign influences, they combine protest actions inside Georgia,
which are sometimes violently suppressed, with numerous complaints to
Washington. The accusations, not without a reason, expose Saakashvili’s
authoritarian style of government, but they rarely expose the Georgian
leader’s main problem – his propensity for conflict with Russia.

“According to opinion polls, 80 percent of Georgians want better
relations with Russia, and this fact was reflected in good approval
ratings for Bidzina Ivanishvili, a billionaire turned politician,
who promises to achieve two incompatible aims – getting Georgia into
NATO and building friendly relations with Russia,” explains Alexander
Tchatchia, the head of the Tbilisi-based center for Globalization
Studies. “But Americans understand that Saakashvili is not forever
and Ivanishvili positions himself as a pro-American politician,
so Hillary Clinton’s message to these two men is the following –
divide power in a more or less decent way.”

Ivanishvili has been barred from running for Georgian presidency by
Saakashvili who declared him a non-citizen – Ivanishvili made his
fortune during his long stays abroad in several countries, including
Russia. However, obviously in an effort to please American lovers
of democracy, the Georgian parliament, currently under control of
Saakashvili’s supporters, plans to change the Georgian legislation,
allowing a citizen of an EU country to run for office in Georgia after
having lived in the country for 5 years – this is exactly the case
of Bidzina Ivanishvili, who has a French citizenship. Ivanishvili
says that if he is not allowed to run, his party will run – and win.

“Polls promise this party 35-40 percent of the popular vote,”
says Tchatchia. “This tremendous success indicates that protest
sentiment is strong in Georgian society. So, the United States is
obviously interested in letting someone like Ivanishvili to “saddle”
this sentiment, so that, heaven forbid, some pro-Russian force does
not use it.”

However, despite numerous rumors, a one-to-one meeting between
Clinton and Ivanishvili did not take place during Mrs. Clinton’s
visit, she did not even see him while meeting a group of Georgia’s
opposition leaders, which included less “heavyweight” figures, such
as David Gamkrelidze from the New Right party and Gueorgy Targamadze,
the leader of Georgian Christian Democrats. Local experts saw in
this fact an indication of Washington’s unwillingness to endorse
Ivanishvili. Obviously, Mrs. Clinton is hedging her bets, not yet
abandoning Saakashvili to his own devices. The general American
plan for Georgia is clear – as a result of parliamentary elections,
scheduled for October this year, Saakashvili will be able to retain
power via parliament. In this situation, even his formal quitting
the office of head of state in a few months won’t change much. The
new president will have largely symbolic powers, while Saakashvili –
probably in tandem with Ivanishvili – will keep driving the country.

This time – from the back seat.