Author: Kanayan Tamar

Le Matin, Suisse
06 mars 2014 jeudi

Oskar Freysinger a des doutes sur le génocide arménien

POLÉMIQUE Le conseiller d’Etat valaisan Oskar Freysinger a relativisé
le génocide arménien de 1915 dans une interview accordée à un journal
turc. Le président d’honneur de l’Association Suisse- Arménie qualifie
les propos du Valaisan d’«irresponsables».

Dans cette interview publiée en anglais le 15 janvier dans le journal
«Aydinlik», Oskar Freysinger déclare à propos du massacre: «peut-être
a-t-il eu lieu, peut-être pas. Cela doit pouvoir être débattu de
manière ouverte».

Plus loin, le conseiller d’Etat en charge de l’éducation se déclare
opposé à ce que le génocide arménien soit enseigné à l’école, ce
d’autant plus que les historiens ne sont pas d’accord entre eux,
dit-il.

Le conseiller national UDC a, semble-t-il, changé d’avis sur la
question. En 2003, il faisait en effet partie des signataires d’une
pétition en faveur de la reconnaissance du génocide contre le peuple
arménien, a rappelé mercredi le portail d’informations
«Tagesanzeiger.ch/newsnet».

Oskar Freysinger était interrogé dans le cadre d’un jugement de la
Cour européenne des droits de l’homme concernant le nationaliste turc
Dogu Perinçek. Ce dernier nie le génocide arménien. En 2007, il avait
été condamné en Suisse pour discrimination raciale.

Guardian Liberty Voice
March 9 2014

Turkey Planning YouTube and Facebook Ban
Added by Vikas Sharma on March 9, 2014.

Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan fired a warning shot at social
media sites YouTube and Facebook. He even added banning these sites
could be next step after phone conversation involving corruption of
the government allies were leaked on YouTube and Facebook. “We will
take the strongest possible way, We will not leave this nation at the
mercy of YouTube and Facebook,” he said in an ATV interview. Also
adding that this is the work of the opposition parties to disrepute
his government before the March 30 local elections. Though multiple
corruption charges were filed last year against the current
government. Meanwhile, the Turkish President Abdullah Gul strongly
rejected the ban proposal saying: “Closure of [social media] is out of
question.” Appallingly, the Turkey Government on Feb 22, 2014 had
already imposed new internet policing laws. These trends from the
Erdogan government is disappointing after it showed promise of
democratic governance at the start.

When Turkey is talked about in global community, the first thing
people credit that country is its global positioning. Turkey is the
bridge between the east and the west but, the great Christopher
Hitchens once narrated a conversation that happened with his friend on
the Turkey bridge question. Apparently, the friend of the Hitch told
him “Turkey is not a bridge my friend, it is a tunnel.” Now it looks
like a tunnel indeed, a morose and stinky one at that. Turkey’s Human
rights violations go a long way back, their treatment of the Kurds as
second class Turkish citizens is true and Kurds are the largest
ethnicity in the world without the state of their own. Also, the Turks
bullying of the Armenian minority and the Armenian genocide during
First World War by the ottoman Turks is well-known.

Talking of Prime Minister. Erdogan, his arrogance stands out. During
the Syrian crisis, he dismissed any talk of the mass murder by Bashar
Al Assad government and supported Assad saying “No Muslim would kill
his own people.” This sort of arrogance is not a new one, in March,
1785 newly born America faced it too. After a prior treaty with the US
for ship trade, the ottomans attacked American ships breaking the
treaty of Tripoli and when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams as American
representatives went to London to meet the Ottoman foreign minister.
When Jefferson asked him why after agreeing to share the sea and
without any US provocation did the Ottomans attack US ships, the
Ottoman minister replied that it is stated in their religion, that all
non Prophet believers were sinners and so they had a special right to
kill and enslave.

In recent times, the turkey government tantrums have been plenty and
the US should take some blame for it. Letting Turkey loose is one of
the many disasters of Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. At
the NATO conferences, during their UN security council voting term and
their push for a European Union membership. If there is still any
suitors for Turkey’s claim to permanent United Nations Security
Council seat and an EU passport, good luck. It is absurd to put Turkey
with its alarming record, in the same conversation as India and Brazil
for a UN Security Council seat. Like the great George Orwell put it in
1984 “If there is hope, it lies in the proles.” Hope Turkey shall
enjoy YouTube and Facebook as most of the world.

Opinion By Vikas Vemuri

Limes, rivista italia di geopolitica, Italy
7 mar 2014

Più è solo, più il Karabakh è forte

a cura di Frand Viller

Conversazione con Karen Mirzojan, ‘uno dei rappresentanti più esperti
del servizio diplomatico armeno’*, spostatosi a dirigere le relazioni
estere del governo separatista del Karabakh.

LIMES Il Nagorno-Karabakh esiste de facto da oltre vent’anni. Qual è
la principale lezione che avete tratto dall’esperienza
dell’indipendenza?
MIRZOJAN È possibile parlare di miracolo del Karabakh. La morale della
nostra storia è che un popolo che crede in se stesso consegue sempre
lo scopo che si è prefisso. La lezione appresa in questi anni è che
per continuare a esistere possiamo contare solo sulle nostre forze e
sulla nostra gente. Quello che gli abitanti dell’Artsakh chiedono oggi
al mondo è che esso li consideri cittadini di un paese normale, dove i
problemi principali sono quelli relativi al miglioramento delle
condizioni sociali, educative e abitative.

LIMES Innumerevoli sforzi diplomatici sono stati profusi nel tentativo
d’instaurare una pace duratura nel Karabakh. Qual è a suo avviso il
principale ostacolo dei negoziati?
MIRZOJAN Il problema principale è l’assenza al tavolo dei negoziati
dei rappresentanti dell’Artsakh. I principali esperti del conflitto
riconoscono che la presenza attiva dei nostri rappresentanti fino al
1998 permise di raggiungere risultati concreti. La nostra assenza
inficia in primo luogo la validità dei , elaborati
su stretta base bilaterale fra Azerbaigian e Armenia, senza che i più
diretti interessati esprimessero la propria opinione. Pertanto, ci
rifiutiamo di commentarne il contenuto. Riguardo al Gruppo di Minsk, è
diventato ricorrente accusarlo di tutti i mali e le inefficienze
possibili, in particolare da parte della cancelleria del nostro vicino
orientale. Su ciò, Stepanakert ha una posizione differente: valutiamo
pragmaticamente tutte le proposte avanzate e riconosciamo che
l’attuale e fragile pace si regge anche sull’attività del Gruppo.

LIMES Come valuta l’azione dell’Ue all’interno del processo negoziale?
L’ultima visita di un rappresentante europeo a Stepanakert risale al
2007.
MIRZOJAN Il fatto che un soggetto con le risorse e le potenzialità
dell’Ue, che dichiara di voler essere protagonista della risoluzione
del conflitto e che a tal fine ha anche creato una struttura ad hoc
come il rappresentante speciale per il Caucaso, non sia in grado di
avere anche solo un’interazione saltuaria con i rappresentanti del
Karabakh crea perplessità. Eppure, rapporti più stabili sarebbero
necessari anche solo per aumentare la comprensione delle dinamiche del
conflitto. L’idea di trasferire all’Ue la co-presidenza francese del
Gruppo rappresenta per noi un atto volto a ostacolare il processo
negoziale, anche perché deriva dall’insoddisfazione azera per la
posizione di Parigi. Non sarebbe neanche una misura significativa: la
Francia si coordina in ogni caso con l’Ue per definire le proprie
iniziative.

LIMES Tutte le ipotesi di pacificazione prevedono che voi cediate
parte dei territori attualmente sotto il vostro controllo.
MIRZOJAN A tale riguardo bisogna tenere presente la volontà del popolo
dell’Artsakh così come espressa nei due referendum del 1991 e del 1996
e nella costituzione del nostro paese, che ha fissato gli attuali
confini sulla base dell’esito del conflitto. Sebbene nessuna parte del
territorio del Nagorno-Karabakh possa costituzionalmente essere
ceduta, si deve constatare che per un eventuale scambio di territori
non sono state fino a oggi chiarite le garanzie di sicurezza
indispensabili per procedere con questa opzione lungo la via indicata
dai princìpi di Madrid.
Ritornando allo stallo delle trattative, sottolineo che l’Azerbaigian
si muove su una linea distruttiva, intenzionalmente diretta a sabotare
l’intero processo negoziale, rifiutando punti dell’accordo per noi
imprescindibili e attuando una parallela corsa agli armamenti che non
mi sembra indicare una concreta volontà di pace. Inoltre, l’ostinato
rifiuto azero di accettare i rappresentanti del Karabakh quale parte a
pieno titolo del negoziato impedisce di adottare decisioni
sostanziali. In tal modo, Baku può continuare a far leva sull’assenza
di risultati per giustificare il proprio riarmo.

LIMES In effetti, lungo la il numero delle vittime
è in aumento. MIRZOJAN La cosiddetta guerra dei cecchini non è stata
iniziata da noi. Abbiamo lanciato numerosi appelli affinché questi
reparti vengano rimossi dalla prima linea, in modo da ridurre la
tensione. Tuttavia gli azeri hanno respinto le nostre richieste. Alla
proposta di un cessate-il-fuoco almeno durante le festività religiose,
la controparte azera ha risposto intensificando i tiri. Siamo
obbligati a reagire.

LIMES Come valuta le recenti analisi che prospettano un ritorno a un
conflitto su larga scala?
MIRZOJAN Il principale pericolo è la propaganda dell’odio che investe
la società azera e che s’indirizza in primo luogo alle giovani
generazioni, quelle senza esperienza diretta del conflitto né della
controparte armena. Tuttavia, al di là della sua retorica bellicosa,
Baku è in grado di valutare realisticamente la situazione sul campo:
l’esercito azero non è pronto a un confronto diretto con le forze di
autodifesa del Nagorno-Karabakh. La propaganda azera viene quindi
effettuata sulla base di esclusivi calcoli di politica interna, per
giustificare l’ampiezza delle spese militari.

LIMES Negli ultimi mesi, la possibilità di riattivare l’aeroporto di
Stepanakert è stata vista come un possibile casus belli.
MIRZOJAN L’infrastruttura è già da tempo ultimata e pronta a essere
utilizzata. La minaccia azera di abbattere qualsiasi aereo si avvicini
a esso è assurda e rivela come Baku rifiuti di tener conto
dell’aspetto umanitario relativo alla riapertura dell’aeroporto. In
ogni caso, dobbiamo effettuare una serie di valutazioni prima di
procedere all’inaugurazione.

LIMES Quant’è sostenibile la posizione dell’Artsakh, soprattutto
tenendo conto del fattore demografico e delle prospettive ecnomiche?
MIRZOJAN Come ho detto, il popolo dell’Arthsakh guarda al futuro con
ottimismo. Senza fare sensazionalismi, la nostra situazione economica
è positiva. Le previsioni per il 2013 sono di una crescita dell’ordine
del 9-10%. Stiamo sviluppando il settore estrattivo, quello
idroelettrico e l’agricoltura, nella quale ai tempi sovietici non vi
era che una monocoltura della vite. Per non parlare dell’enorme
potenziale del turismo. Se confrontiamo questa situazione con quella
antecedente al conflitto, il quadro è più che positivo. Certo, vi sono
potenziali ancora da sfruttare, come la vicinanza dell’Iran, da cui
contiamo d’attrarre investitori privati grazie al quadro legislativo
favorevole introdotto per gli investimenti esteri diretti. Seri sforzi
vengono effettuati per superare le difficoltà logistiche. Presto,
l’arteria di Vartakent-Vardenis – oltre a quella già esistente che
passa per Kelbajar – collegherà l’Artsakh con l’Armenia. I capitali
necessari alla sua costruzione sono già disponibili: il suo impatto in
termini di turismo e occupazione sarà enorme.
Quanto al fattore demografico, la invito a diffidare dei dati diffusi
da parte azera. Il saldo migratorio e le nascite sono superiori a
quelli espressi nelle statistiche. La maggior parte dei migranti è
stagionale, in linea con le abitudini degli abitanti delle regioni
montane. In ogni caso, nessuno abbandona il Nagorno-Karabakh per
mancanza di fiducia nel futuro.

Per approfondire: Grandi Giochi nel Caucaso

*Parole pronunciate dall’attuale capo degli Esteri armeni, E.
Nalbandian, in occasione della cerimonia del 20° anniversario della
creazione del ministero degli Affari esteri del Nagorno-Karabakh, il
19 luglio 2013 a Stepanakert.

Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
March 8 2014

BaÅ?buÄ?’s release a sign of changing balances

A local court ordered the release of Turkey’s former Chief of General
Staff Ä°lker BaÅ?buÄ? on March 7.

The ruling follows a decision by the Constitutional Court a day
before, which stated that BaÅ?buÄ?’s rights were violated by arresting
him in the first place.

BaÅ?buÄ? was sentenced to life by a Specially Authorized Istanbul
Criminal Court in 2013 for `establishing a terrorist organization’ in
order to topple the government of Prime Minister Tayyip ErdoÄ?an.

He was actually ErdoÄ?an’s land forces commander from 2006 to 2008 and
chief of staff from 2008 to 2011, and was accused by prosecutors of
forming a plot to overthrow the government. He was first asked to
testify as a witness but was then arrested as a suspect on Jan. 6,
2012.

ErdoÄ?an objected to the arrest of BaÅ?buÄ?, saying the latter could be
tried but he did not believe that there was any reason to keep him
under arrest.

The arrest was actually one of the first open indicators of the coming
confrontation between ErdoÄ?an and Fethullah Gülen, the moderate
Islamist scholar living in the U.S. with a global network of
sympathizers. Gülen was actually a close ally of ErdoÄ?an during the
investigations and trials in order to clear the way against the
military, the secular establishment, and the Kurds.

The prime minister got his second alert when the same group of
prosecutors sought to interrogate Hakan Fidan, ErdoÄ?an’s intelligence
chief, on Feb. 7, 2012. It was then that the confrontation really
started. But the Dec. 17, 2013 graft probe made the conflict public
and ErdoÄ?an openly denounced the prosecutors, judges and policemen
involved as Gülenists attempting a coup against his government.
BaÅ?buÄ? has denied all charges against him from day one, but his
complaints started to be taken seriously by the government only after
the Dec. 17 graft probe. BaÅ?buÄ?’s release was made possible after the
new law that introduced more political influence on the appointment of
judges and prosecutors, and the abolition of Specially Authorized
Courts (Ã-YM). The abolition of those courts was something that
opposition parties have been demanding for years, but ErdoÄ?an only
decided to abolish them after he believed they were infiltrated by
Gülenists.

By coincidence or not, President Abdullah Gül approved and put into
effect the law to abolish the Ã-YMs at almost the same time as the
Constitutional Court decided that there had been rights violations. As
a result, the release request file was sent to a local criminal court
instead of an Ã-YM, as BaÅ?buÄ?’s lawyers believe the latter insisted on
the first decision not to release him.

The March 7 release is likely to affect the fate of many other
prisoners, which is not likely to make everyone happy.

For example, hours before BaÅ?buÄ?, Erhan Tuncel, an accomplice in the
murder of Hrant Dink, an Armenian-origin Turkish journalist, was also
released.

Ironically, the releases were made possible by the new political
atmosphere, in which former allies ErdoÄ?an and Gülen are in a fierce
fight. This new atmosphere seems like it will have further effects on
political life as Turkey heads for critical local elections on March
30.

March/08/2014

Huffington Post
March 8 2014

Pariotic Taurine Excreta

By Ian Williams

Vladimir Putin’s actions in Crimea are perilously close to tearing up
rules that have kept us “the peoples of the world from the scourge of
war.”

Both sides in the conflict will be invoking the United Nations
Charter, which enshrines the inviolability of sovereign states and
their borders — unlike the League of Nations, which was surprisingly
active at redrawing borders after Versailles. The root of the problem
is the weird West European notion of the nation state — a Procrustean
construct in which populations had to be cut or stretched to fit
homogeneously into a frame predetermined by nationalist ideologues.
The French probably invented it — at a time when more than half their
population did not speak French.

Looking at the Ottomans and the Hapsburgs almost leads to nostalgia,
albeit with many qualifications. In their different ways, they at
least provided for linguistic and ethnic diversity within one polity,
which the European Union (despite its failings) also offers.

Boris Yeltsin’s power grab in Moscow led to the chaotic dissolution of
the Soviet Union, leaving far too many questions unanswered, not least
of which were the rights of minorities. A shared EU style citizenship,
dual nationalities, linguistic rights should all have been negotiated
— not to mention open borders.

Decolonization in both Africa and the former Soviet Union led to many
absurdities based on respect for existing boundaries whether drawn up
by tipsy District Commissioners in Africa or playful commissars in the
Soviet Union following Stalin’s. One of Stalin’s little jokes,
Nagorno-Karabagh, stranding an enclave of Armenians in Azerbaijan, is
a classic unresolved issue that cannot be solved without adjusting
borders.

So what of Ukraine? During the Balkan Wars, Bogdan Denitch, who
represented the Democratic Socialists of America at the Socialist
International, often quoted the Balkan formula: “Why should I be a
minority in your country, when you could be a minority in mine?” It
seems to be doing sterling service in Ukraine now.

If only Putin were as sedulous about the rights of, say, Chechens, as
he is about Russian speakers in the Crimea. Or if Moscow had shown any
respect for the rights of the Crimean Tartars. But then the respect
for Iraqi sovereignty shown by George W. Bush and Tony Blair is hardly
a good example. Experience suggests that people believe in their own
right to self-determination but are less convinced about the rights of
others. Ask a typical Indian about Kashmiri rights, an Argentinean
about Falkland Islanders, or a Moroccan about Western Sahara, and the
chances are you will hit a mother lode of patriotic taurine excreta.

While many at the time would agree that the Sudeten Germans had been
deprived of their right to self-determination, there is a consensus
that Hitler’s “liberation” of them broke all the rules. It was the
Nazis flouting of the rules against aggression and conquest that led
to the UN Charter’s emphasis on sovereignty — which has been
reasonably successful so far in averting a third world war.

There are more questions than answers in Ukraine. Its capital, Kiev,
was the core of what became the Russian state. There were Polish,
Lithuanian and Russian states on what is now Ukrainian territory but
until 1917 there had been no independent Ukrainian polity. Ironically,
Ukraine owes its present territory to Stalin and his joint invasion
with Hitler in of Poland in 1939.

But the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists, with their anti-Russian language
moves, are not exactly paragons of toleration. If Ukraine has a right
to national self-determination, then why don’t the constituent parts
also have the same right? There is nothing in the UN Charter to stop
boundaries being changed — but not by force. There are other ways.
One is negotiation, from first principles with consultation and
protection for all the parties on the ground. The other is the EU
approach, which has been remarkably successful in making the borders
meaningless for all but administrative purposes. If Britain and the
new Europe can remain economically part of the EU while groveling
politically to Washington, Ukraine can join the EU without joining
Nato and while maintaining the close political relations it needs with
Russia. After all, those Ukrainian nationalists still want Russian gas
to keep them warm.

First published in Tribune, UK, 7 March 2014

Orange County Register (California)
March 7, 2014 Friday

Following the Russian playbook

By JAMES J. COYLE, Contributing Writer

Unlikely that U.S. or Europe will militarily intervene.

Moscow has a long history of using military force to maintain its
control over areas it considers part of its empire. East Berlin,
Hungary and Czechoslovakia are examples from Cold War history. Other
examples are less well known in the West, but are still significant.

On Dec. 27, 1979, Soviet forces dressed in Afghan army uniforms took
over the major government and military installations in Kabul,
Afghanistan. Russia recognized Babrak Karmal as the rightful leader of
Afghanistan and then heeded his request for intervention (broadcast
from his location inside the Soviet Union) to justify the invasion.

The Soviets announced their military action was to protect the
socialist revolution in Afghanistan.

A decade later, as the Soviet Union collapsed, a section of Moldova
separated from that country and unilaterally declared its
independence. This separatist region, the Trans-Dniester, was
supported by Moscow in a brief war in 1992. Russian troops then moved
into the area as peacekeepers.

Russia now chairs fruitless peace talks between the two sides. Russia
also used its position in Trans-Dniester as justification to cancel
its involvement with the Conventional Forces in Europe arms limitation
treaty.

In the same period, areas within Georgia broke away from that country.
These separatist regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, declared their
independence. Russia again moved troops into the area as peacekeepers
and co-chaired peace talks that have gone nowhere. In 2008, when
Georgia tried to restore its sovereignty over these separatist areas,
Moscow fought a war with that country, supposedly to protect Russian
citizens living in the breakaway republics. Russia has since
recognized the two areas as sovereign nations and kept their forces on
the Georgian border.

In 1991-94 Armenia invaded around one-fifth of Azerbaijan’s territory,
including the Nagorno-Karabakh region. During the war, Armenia was
heavily supported by the Russian military. Today, the largest Russian
military base outside of Russian territory is located in Armenia.

The United Nations Security Council passed four resolutions
acknowledging that Nagorno- Karabakh and the surrounding occupied
territories are part of Azerbaijan, and demanding immediate withdrawal
of all Armenian troops from the occupied territories. But the
resolutions remain unfulfilled by Russian-backed Armenia. Given
Russia’s veto power on the Security Council, it is not surprising that
the Council does nothing to push for the implementation of its own
resolutions.

As in Moldova and Georgia, Russia is a cosponsor of peace talks that
have not solved the conflict.

Now it is Ukraine’s turn. Russian military units dressed in uniforms
without insignia (but driving Russian-licensed military vehicles)
occupied or surrounded major governmental and military installations
in Crimea. Russia has recognized Sergei Aksyonov as the leader of
Crimea, despite his party having the support of 3 percent of the
people. Russia is defending its moves in the area as an effort to
protect Russian citizens in Crimea. As NATO forces mass on the Polish
border and the United States calls for a cease-fire, Russian President
Vladimir Putin has ended military maneuvers on the Russian-Ukrainian
border. He said he has not ruled out direct military intervention in
the east of the country, if necessary to protect Russian citizens.

If history is a guide, neither Europe nor the United States will
militarily defend Ukraine’s independence. Any United Nations
resolution will call for respecting the territorial integrity of
Ukraine, but will not contain enforcement provisions or a condemnation
of Russian moves.

A cease-fire will be established, with Russian troops acting as
peacekeepers. Russia will co-chair peace talks that will enshrine
their continued involvement. Russia, controlling Ukraine’s northern
borders and the Crimea, will have a stranglehold on that nation’s
independence. American prestige in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus
will slip another notch.

American politicians are calling for steps to roll back Russian gains
in Crimea. For their calls to be heeded, they should first call for
the removal of Russian troops in the conflicts in Moldova, Georgia and
Azerbaijan.

James J. Coyle, Ph.D., is
the director of Global
Education at Chapman
University and is chair of the
Eurasian committee of the Pacific
Council on International Policy.

Interfax, Russia
March 7 2014

EDB could issue $100 mln loan to Armenia in 2014 to build North-South
road corridor

YEREVAN. March 7

EDB could issue $100 mln loan to Armenia in 2014 to build North-South
road corridor

The Eurasian Development Bank (EDB) could issue a loan for $100
million to Armenia for the construction of the North-South highway,
the bank said in a statement.

The project’s feasibility study will be prepared at the end of April
this year, the statement cites representatives from the Armenian
government as saying.

The $100 million loan will be issued by the bank in its capacity as
manager of the Eurasian Economic Community’s (EurAsEC) Anti-Crisis
Fund (ACF).

The EDB said that financing could begin as early as 2014 if the ACF
council gives its final approval of the project, which is set to occur
in June.

The EurAsEC Anti-Crisis Fund approved the blueprints for the project
in June of 2013, as well as the respective preliminary application for
ACF funding. These resolutions by the ACF council allowed preparation
for the feasibility study to begin, the EDB said.

The North-South transportation corridor joins Central Asia and India
with Iran, Georgia, Russia and Europe. Extending across Armenia from
south to north (Megri-Kapan-Goris-Yerevan-Ashtarak-Gyumri-Bavra), the
corridor is linked to the Georgian road network leading to Poti and
Batumi ports on the Black Sea and farther into Russia, the CIS and the
European Union. The North-South highway is also part of the Asian
Highway Network (AH82), which connects Central Asian countries such as
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Kh ak

Judicial Candidate Joseph Berman, the ADL, and the Armenian Genocide

BY STAFF – POSTED ON MARCH 8, 2014*POSTED IN:

By David Boyajian

Background

The presentation below was given by David Boyajian at a public hearing for
attorney Joseph S. Berman before the Massachusetts Governor’s Council on
February 26, 2014. The hearing took place at the State House in Boston,
Massachusetts. Mr. Boyajian is a member of the Armenian American
community of Massachusetts.

In 2013, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick nominated Mr. Berman, a
long-time member and National Commissioner of the Anti-Defamation League
(ADL), to be a Superior Court judge. The Massachusetts Constitution
empowers the eight elected members of the Governor’s Council to confirm or
reject all judicial nominations.

Following Mr. Berman’s first Governor’s Council hearing on November 13,
2013, a three-month long public controversy ensued over his suitability to
be a judge.

The Councilors had several reasons, beside his ADL leadership post, for
doubting Mr. Berman’s suitability: his lack of truthfulness as to whether
he had asked elected officials to lobby the Councilors on his behalf; a
lack of criminal trial experience; poor demeanor; over $100,000 in
political campaign contributions, including to Governor Patrick, since
being rejected for a judgeship in 2004; and more.

On February 26, the Governor’s Council vote was a 4-4 tie, which means that
Mr. Berman’s candidacy for a judgeship failed.

Presentation by David Boyajian

Councilors, thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

I know that a majority of you have previously indicated they will not
confirm Joseph Berman to be a Superior Court judge, and that you have a
variety of reasons for that.

I’ve listened to the tape of Mr. Berman’s first hearing in November, and
I’m aware of those reasons.

Mr. Berman’s position as a National Commissioner of the Anti-Defamation
League, which has engaged in inexcusable activities against an ethnic group
– Armenian Americans – is one reason that has been expressed by some.

I must note that in his questionnaire in November of 2013, Mr. Berman
listed himself as being on both the National and Regional ADL boards.

I’ll be providing factual context to what I will be saying about Mr.
Berman’s nomination and the ADL so that the Council, those present, and the
media, understand my remarks. This is especially important because the
media has often misrepresented some essential facts.

I’m going to talk about the credibility of Mr. Berman and, because New
England (N.E.) ADL officials have publicly supported him, the credibility
of the N.E. ADL.

During his November 2013 hearing, Mr. Berman did himself no favors when,
during questioning by Councilor Jubinville, he repeatedly denied having
called any official or candidate to lobby the Councilors. He later had to
admit to Councilor Caissie that that morning he had phoned a State Senator
– now a Congresswoman – to lobby some of you. Credibility and truthfulness
are, of course, essential qualities in a judge.

Mr. Berman has been a member of the ADL for about 19 years, and an ADL
National Commissioner since 2006.

For 20 years – and probably even longer – the ADL has been denying the
factuality of the Armenian genocide committed by Turkey against Armenian
Christians from 1915 to 1923. The ADL, consciously and deliberately, went
out of its way to engage in anti-human rights activities directed against a
particular ethnic group, namely Armenian Americans, who had never given the
ADL any reason to do so.

All those years, surely the New England ADL, including Mr. Berman, knew
what the ADL was doing. Did they speak out? No.

The ADL, which claims to be a universal human rights organization, not just
a Jewish one, has also actively worked with Turke, a major human rights
violator, to defeat Armenian genocide resolutions in the US Congress. Can
you imagine any genuine human rights group, such as Amnesty International,
actively working against recognition of a proven genocide?

Just imagine the ADL’s reaction if some organization which claimed to
uphold human rights were trying to stop the scores of Holocaust resolutions
in the U.S. Congress, the United Nations, and other countries.

Would the Governor even be nominating Mr. Berman if the ADL was trying to
defeat a Congressional resolution recognizing the evils of Black Slavery?

What would your reaction be if the ADL made a deal with the British
Government to defeat a resolution on the Irish Famine?

At his November 2013 hearing, Mr. Berman was asked what he’d do if he were
a member of an organization which opposed recognition of the Holocaust. He
said only that he would oppose the policy. I don’t believe him. I
believe that he would resign from such an organization. Yet he never
resigned from the ADL.

Some essential background if I may: Jewish political analysts and the
Jewish media have acknowledged that the ADL’s anti-Armenian activities came
about as part of a three-way deal many years ago among Turkey, Israel, and
a few of the leading Jewish American lobbying groups, including the ADL,
the American Jewish Committee, AIPAC, the Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs, and B’nai B’rith.

I know this personally because 10 years ago a fine man, William Parsons,
the then-Chief of Staff at the US Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, gave
a public lecture at Tufts. He told me afterwards that the ADL was indeed
lobbying against Armenian Americans. Has it never occurred to the National
ADL and its Commissioners that they cannot credibly ask us to commemorate
the Holocaust while they simultaneously work to cover up a Christian
genocide?

Again, surely the New England ADL, and its National Commissioners,
including Mr. Berman, knew what the ADL was up to. Did they ever speak
out? No.

I must mention that scores of American organizations, of various
orientations and ethnic groups, and many well-known Jewish American
organizations, historians, authors, human rights advocates, and elected
officials, have openly supported the Armenian genocide resolution. Such
groups include the American Jewish World Service, the Jewish War Veterans
of the USA, and Jewish World Watch.

Those Jewish organizations spoke out. Did the New England ADL, and Mr.
Berman? No.

In July of 2007, the ADL’s Armenian genocide denials and lobbying for
Turkey against Armenian Americans began to make headlines. It started
locally with a letter I wrote to the Watertown Tab newspaper pointing out
that Watertown was one of many municipalities that had adopted the ADL’s
alleged anti-bias program known as “No Place for Hate.”
[image: OLYMPUS DIGITAL
CAMERA]

It quickly became a national and international issue. Frantic diplomatic
activity took place between Turkey and Israel. There are hundreds of
articles about this archived on the Armenian American activists’ website
known as NoPlaceForDenial.com.

On NoPlaceforDenial.com, please look particularly at the section titled
“The History of Lobbying Against Genocide Recognition”, which contains
revealing articles from the Jewish and non-Jewish press. You will be
shocked and repulsed.

So, what did the N.E. ADL and Joseph Berman say or do before this issue
erupted in 2007? Apparently, nothing.

In August of 2007, Andrew Tarsy, head of the N.E. ADL, after initially not
acknowledging the Armenian genocide, then spoke out publicly, and
acknowledged the Armenian genocide. He was fired by ADL National Director
Abraham Foxman. Did Mr. Berman ever speak out publicly? No.

Mike Ross, the Boston City Councilor, and Stewart Cohen, former chairman of
Polaroid, immediately resigned from the ADL. Did Joseph Berman resign?
No. In his first Governor’s Council hearing, in November, Mr. Berman was
asked about this. He replied that he wrote a resignation “in his head”,
but never acted on it. I am sorry, but “in his head” is not good enough.

Mr. Berman says that he and some other New England ADL members went to New
York City in November of 2007 to the ADL’s national conclave. They said
they wanted the ADL to change its stance against Armenians. First, even
assuming that they did so, at that point it was too little, too late.

You see, three months earlier, soon after this issue broke, the National
ADL, on August 21, 2007, issued a statement that purported to be an
acknowledgment of the Armenian genocide, but was not.

The ADL’s full statement implied that the Armenian genocide – it also used
the phrase “tantamount to genocide” – was simply a “consequence” of wartime
conditions. But the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention, the
grandfather of all international law on genocide, specifically requires
intent by the perpetrator to legally be “genocide”.

Now, that legalistically dishonest ADL statement was implicitly rejected
not just by Armenian Americans and human rights advocates. It was also
rejected by the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which represents all
the Commonwealth’s cities and towns. The MMA cut ties with the ADL’s “No
Place for Hate” even after the ADL statement. The following municipalities
also cut ties after the ADL statement: Arlington, Bedford, Belmont,
Lexington, Medford, Needham, Newburyport, Newton, Northampton, Peabody,
Somerville, and Westwood.

Many top members of the N.E. ADL, including Mr. Berman, are lawyers.
Surely, if laymen can understand the dishonest wording in the National
ADL’s statement in August of 2007, so can lawyers in the N.E. ADL. A
judge should have knowledge and integrity when it comes to civil and human
rights law.

Yet now – and only now- are we hearing publicly from Mr. Berman on the
Armenian genocide issue, just when he wishes to become a judge.

Indeed, I do not recall any member of the N.E. ADL publicly pointing out
that the National ADL’s August 21, 2007 statement was worded so as to not
meet the U.N’s official definition of genocide. Many of the persons who
signed a recent petition supporting Mr. Berman – including former Attorney
General Scott Harshbarger and former Governor William Weld – are also
attorneys.

Have any of them ever publicly pointed out the legal problems with the
ADL’s August 2007 statement? Not to my knowledge.

In late 2007, the N.E. ADL did request the National ADL to reverse its
anti-Armenian policies.

But that was many years, even decades, after it had to have known of those
policies. And only after Massachusetts Armenians Americans forced the
issue in the summer of 2007.

And what have the N.E ADL and Mr. Berman done since 2007 on the Armenian
issue? Apparently, nothing at all, and worse.

You see, in 2008, Mr. Derek Shulman became the N.E. ADL’s new director. He
served until last month. Who is Derek Shulman? He was a “political
director” in AIPAC, the American Israel Political Affairs Committee. It is
a matter of public record that AIPAC, since at least the early 1990’s, has
worked directly with Turks to defeat Armenian genocide resolutions in the
U.S. Congress. If, in 2008, the N.E. ADL and Mr. Berman were truly sincere
in the wake of being criticized over the Armenian genocide issue, why would
they allow themselves to be led by a person from an organization, AIPAC,
that has an anti-Armenian record?

Indeed, even though the N.E. ADL claims to have told the national ADL that
it should favor the Armenian genocide resolution, in a presentation he gave
in Falmouth, Massachusetts in 2012, Derek Shulman told his audience that
“we” – implying the N.E. and the national ADL – oppose the Armenian
genocide resolution.

In other words, the N.E. ADL and its leaders, including Mr. Berman, are not
credible.

And where were the leaders of the N.E. ADL in 2007, including Mr. Berman,
when the Armenian Heritage Park, which had been designated by a state law
passed by the legislature for the Rose Kennedy Greenway, was under attack,
for specious reasons, by a top member of the New England ADL, namely Peter
Meade, head of the Greenway Conservancy?

Mr. Meade, though Catholic, was and is a board member of the N.E. ADL. In
an article I wrote for area newspapers, titled “The Greenway is No Place
for the ADL”, I disproved the specious reasons being cited by the Boston
Globe, such as that there were supposedly no memorials or ethnic content
slated for the Greenway. As a member of the anti-Armenian ADL, Mr. Meade
had a clear conflict of interest vis-a-vis the Armenian Park.

Why didn’t the leaders of N.E. ADL 2007, including Mr. Berman, speak out
publicly against Mr. Meade’s conflict of interest?

I will conclude with some facts regarding what this nomination is not about.

First, I know that no Governor’s Councilor is making a decision on this
nomination on the basis of ethnicity or religion.

Moreover, the ADL and Armenian genocide issue is not even remotely a matter
of Armenian Americans versus Jewish Americans. The two peoples are, in
fact, very friendly. Over the years, probably hundreds of joint community
and academic events and programs on genocide have been held by the two
communities. For example, the American Jewish University in Los Angeles
will hold just such an event on March 10th.

In the year 2000, 126 Holocaust Scholars signed a petition appearing in the
New York Times that acknowledged the Armenian genocide.

A renowned Polish Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, actually coined the word
“genocide” in the 1940’s and was the primary author of the United Nations
Genocide Convention of 1948. In a CBS-TV interview in 1949, which can be
seen on YouTube, Lemkin said that the principal reason he became interested
in genocide was because “it happened to the Armenians”. Nearly 20
countries, including Canada, France, the Netherlands, and Argentina, as
well as the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the European
Union Parliament, the Parliament of the Council of Europe, a U.N.
Subcommittee, the Vatican, and many more institutions have officially
recognized the Armenian genocide specifically as “genocide.”

Finally, the ADL, and its National Commissioners, and similar groups, owe
Armenian American reparations. They must apologize to Armenian Americans,
they must unambiguously recognize the Armenian genocide, and they must work
affirmatively for passage of the Armenian genocide resolution.

The ADL claims it is a universal human rights organization that defends the
rights of all ethnic groups. At this time, that claim is false.

The ADL, led by its National Commissioners, owe it to the Jewish American
community and others to reform so that the ADL truly supports universal
human rights.

For all the above reasons, I respectfully ask that the Governor’s Council
not confirm ADL National Commissioner Joseph Berman as a judge. Thank you.

Karabakh president attended festivities Khanck village

March 08, 2014 | 17:48

STEPANAKERT. – President of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Bako
Sahakyan on Saturday visited the village of Khanck in the Askeran
region and attended feastivities dedicated to Tonrahats (bread baked
in the ground oven).

President Sahakyan underlined importance of preserving national
traditions as an integral part of the Karabakh people’s identity.

Speaker of the NKR National Assembly Ashot Ghulyan, Prime Minister
Ara Harutyunyan and other officials were present at the festivities.

News from Armenia – NEWS.am

Residents of Armenia’s Tavush urge international organizations to put
pressure upon Azerbaijan on Mamikon Khojoyan’s case

14:11, 8 March, 2014

YEREVAN, MARCH 8, ARMENPRESS. The International Patriotic Union of
Tavush has sent an open letter to the heads of the Armenian
representations of a number of international organizations, including
the UN, OSCE, and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), on
the violence committed against the 77-year old resident of Upper
Karmiraghbyur village of Armenia’s Tavush Province Mamikon Khojoyan in
Azerbaijan.

As reports “Armenpress” in particular the letter runs as follows:

“Dear representatives of respected international organizations,
We all encountered another case of violence by Azerbaijan, which is
very characteristic for them. We ask and urge You to introduce the
issue to the whole world and put pressure upon the Azerbaijani
authorities by condemning the inhumane attitude towards a peaceful
civilian, which contradicts the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

Previously it was reported that Mamikon Khojoyan, a citizen of
Armenia, resident of Verin Karmiraghbyur village of Tavush province,
who
had been interned in Baku, Azerbaijan, returned to Armenia under the
auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on
March 4. 77-year-old Mamikon Khojoyan was delivered to the care of the
authorities by Azerbaijan with bodily traces of violence.

The Department of Mass Media and Public Relations of the Ministry of
Defense of the Republic of Armenia informed Armenpress that after
returning to Armenia Mamikon Khojoyan was moved to Ijevan Medical
Center. After the examination multiple bruises, fractures and
injuries were found on his body. Previously broadcasted videos and
messages by the Azerbaijani media did not mention about these
injuries, which gives evidence that Mamikon Khojoyan got injuries at
the period of his captivity in the Azerbaijani side.