Author: Kanayan Tamar

Rustamyan Warns Against `Strangling’ Control Chamber’s Independence

July 3, 2013

President Serj Sargsyan and ARF-D Parliamentary Faction Leader, Armen
Rustamyan (photo azatutyun.am 19/04/2013)

President Serj Sargsyan and ARF-D Parliamentary Faction Leader, Armen
Rustamyan (photo azatutyun.am 19/04/2013) (azatutyun.am RFE/RL)
Dashnak Leader Deplores Sarkisian Criticism Of Parliament Body

A leader of the opposition Armenian Revolutionary Federation
(Dashnaktsutyun) on Wednesday rejected President Serzh Sarkisian’s
harsh criticism of a parliamentary oversight body that has alleged
serious misuse of public funds by his government.

Armen Rustamian warned the executive branch against `strangling’ the
supposedly independent Audit Chamber [Control Chamber].

`We must keep in mind that the Audit Chamber is an independent body,’
he told RFE/RL’s Armenian service (Azatutyun.am). `We probably don’t
understand what being an independent body means. It is illegal to
issue orders to independent bodies from one or another side.’

Rustamian was commenting on a weekend meeting of top state officials
that was chaired by Sarkisian. The meeting discussed a recent Audit
Chamber report that alleged millions of dollars worth of financial
losses in the administration of procurement contracts by various
government agencies. The Armenian government accused the chamber of
grossly inflating possible financial abuses for political purposes.

Sarkisian sided with the government during the meeting, saying that
the head of the chamber, Ishkhan Zakarian, overstepped his legal
powers by drawing far-reaching conclusions from the report. The
president was particularly enraged by Zakarian’s claims that as much
as 70 percent of budgetary expenditure in Armenia may be misused or
wasted.

Rustamian, who leads Dashnaktsutyun’s parliamentary faction, said
Sarkisian’s remarks ran counter to a constitutional provision that
guarantees the chamber’s independence from the executive branch. He
said they could discourage the parliamentary body from scrutinizing
the government’s activities in the future.

`Today we have a serious problem with creating a mechanism of checks
and balances in the government system’ said opposition leader. `We
must not strangle the Audit Chamber in a way that would keep people
from openly speaking about some things’.

This stalemate should lead to something deeper
Thursday, 13 June 2013

Interview with Serge Avedikian

Serge Avedikian
French actor and director

French actor and director Serge Avedikian is one of the first artists
from the Armenian Diaspora to advocate the necessity of talking with
Turks. He has observed that, today, the process of dialogue is
stagnant, and the various initiatives have had mitigated results. In
order to move ahead, the director is counting on a renewed expression
from a new generation of Turkish intellectuals and artists.

How did you meet Hrant Dink?

Our first meeting took place in the Agos offices. When I was passing
through Istanbul, in 1998, on my way to the Bodrum Festival, a first
article about me had appeared in Agos. However, Hrant was not in town
so we missed each other. When I came back in 2003 for the Bursa
Festival and to scout locations for Nous avons bu la même eau (We
Drank the Same Water, 2008), I was asked for an interview. I recall
his first words very vividly. Standing up and embracing me, he said to
me in Armenian: `You had become a myth for me, but here you are, for
real.’ Of course, it shook me a little and I wondered: `What does he
think of me to say that?’ I had an interview with him about the Bursa
Festival and, in particular, about rediscovering, for the second time
in 13 years, the village of Sölöz [editor’s note: the village of Serge
Avedikian’s grandfather, near Bursa, where he shot his documentary
film, `We Drank the Same Water’.] He was very surprised, which
surprised me too, because although he was knowledgeable about the
Armenian community and its history, he hadn’t heard of Sölöz. It means
there are many stories, some close to Istanbul, that even Armenians
don’t know about – which is understandable, since all this was hidden.
And he went on: `It’s incredible, the story of that village. You’ve
got to tell me more about it.’ We remained connected. I met him before
going to film in Sölöz, then after shooting, and when the film was
edited. Once we went to the restaurant with Hrant, Cengiz Aktar, Ali
Bayramoglu and Taner Akçam, who was passing through Istanbul. He
introduced them to me.

So, you got to meet these Istanbul intellectuals through Hrant Dink?

That’s right. Because, in Istanbul, apart from a few people of
Armenian ancestry, I didn’t know many people in the film or
intellectual circles. Hrant is the one who introduced me to these
people who surrounded him over a dinner at Boncuk’s, on the upper
floor of the restaurant, as is customary.

And you watched one of the first versions of `Nous avons bu la même
eau’ with Hrant, in Istanbul, didn’t you?

Yes, it was six months before his death. I had come to the Short films
festival in Istanbul. Meanwhile we had edited a first version of the
film. Valérie Terranova, one of Jacques Chirac’s advisors, was
visiting and asked me to introduce her to Hrant. Since I also wanted
to show him my first edited version of the film, we held that
screening which enabled to do both things at once. It was very moving.
And this bond is very special since it was Valérie Terranova who
called me with the news of Hrant’s death.

Hrant had said: `This is the film that should be shown to the
Diaspora. It shows that you have to go to Turkey to talk to people’.

We were totally in synch with Hrant on the need to show an open mind
and an ability to reach out to today’s Turkey, across the political
board with the exception of fascists, to talk to people, and tell them
we existed; and also, on the need to share our own discovery of the
progress that was being made concerning Turkey within the Diaspora.
It’s exactly what Hrant was working on with Agos, with his articles on
Anatolian villages, on Armenian authors, on life before the Genocide,
and also on Turkey’s ignorance of all this after the Genocide. We
Drank the Same Water was doing the same work – i.e. to go and meet
Turkish citizens who were unaware, at least in part, of the history of
a particular village. Indeed, it was symbolically powerful that the
space where Armenians used to live should now be occupied by Pomaks,
telling what they felt as immigrants themselves in this story of a
people substituted to another, and commenting on what Armenians had
built and the traces they had left. It was one of the strong points
which allowed a different dialogue to develop. I believe that Hrant
was not only supportive of this approach but was, in his way and with
his own team, fully involved in this type of work. There has been a
genuine encounter between Hrant’s work at Agos and our own.

It was a time when most Armenians from the Diaspora never contemplated
coming to Turkey or even talking to Turks.

In any case, those who did would do it on the sly. For instance, they
came to look for memorabilia. In Sölöz, we learnt that some Armenians
had come to collect an object or a tombstone. But this was done
covertly because it was unmentionable. I think that our approach
managed to break that taboo. When there was no recognition of his
history, how could an Armenian talk with Turks, in Turkey itself,
right where deportations and the genocide had taken place? This taboo
was toppled by the film and by Hrant’s work.

There have been many criticisms of the film because of that.

A segment of the French Diaspora was very sceptical and said: `You’re
just being taken in, you can’t have a dialogue with people who don’t
admit to anything.’ I think that it was a transition period for many,
particularly for the young.

It appeared that, after this film and several other projects,
Armenians from the Diaspora started to go to Turkey. In a way, you
opened the way. What did that process change, both with Armenians and
Turks?

First of all, people started to really talk, to ask true questions.
How to get out of the deadlock of non-dialogue? How to get out of
taboos on either side? In fact, both parties are cornered by their
extremes. On the Turkish side, from the government and nationalists,
you hear: `How can you talk with Armenians who force you to recognize
a genocide that doesn’t exist?’ And on the Armenian side: `How can you
talk to people who don’t even admit that it was genocide? It’s like
talking to a brick wall.’ I think it is this stumbling block that was
forced through, but not for everyone. To my mind, the result is quite
mitigated. We shouldn’t forget that when collecting signatures for the
Forgiveness plea launched by Turkish intellectuals – which also
toppled some taboos – the result didn’t turn out to be as good as the
organizers expected. They imagined – or at least hoped for – that they
would get a tsunami of signatures, and so did I. It could have
empowered those who had previously remained silent to speak out
democratically. They thought that they would get a million signatures.
I believe that there finally were no more than 30,000, which wasn’t so
bad, but still way down what was hoped for. I’d say that the process
opened up a breach, which enabled many young Armenians to travel to
Anatolia. A few had done it before, but now it was in the open.
Connections were initiated and debates organized, particularly in
France, with Turkish intellectuals such as Ali Bayramoglu, Cengiz
Aktar, Ahmet Insel and Taner Akçam. I attended most of them. There
were also books published featuring dialogues between Armenians and
Turks. I feel that this initial ebullience has somewhat abated because
more far-reaching and long-standing initiatives are now building in
its wake. And films too, I’m sure of that. When you unwittingly are a
pioneer, you keep your finger on the pulse of things and can see them
coming. It may not happen right away. There are lulls, and returns to
scepticism. Let’s not forget that Hrant’s death happened, with
double-edged results.

When these initiatives started to multiply, Hrant became dangerous in
Turkey. Why is that, do you think? What was he changing in Turkey?

I think that it was the audacity of his speaking frankly. As long as
an intellectual remains intellectually demonstrative, he isn’t
dangerous. He only becomes so when he stops being intellectual, when
he wages a real battle with deeply felt words, with words that
everybody can hear and that can be heard by many. I think it’s at this
stage that the authorities saw that man as a threat. He took up too
much space and, above all, with his charisma, he enthralled Turkish
intellectuals. Instead of confronting him, they followed him. To me,
it’s what is so painful in this murder because, again, it’s an
Armenian who was killed, and not a Turkish opponent. It changed many
things and angered most of those who were listening to him. Hundreds
of thousands of people took to the streets for his funeral.

Did you expect such a response in Turkey?

No. I thought that it would be a solemn time, and recaptured by the
government, which was partly the case, but I never thought there would
be so many people down in the street. No-one had anticipated such an
outcry coming from crowds holding protest signs. This demonstration
will never be forgotten, it even is perpetuated to a certain extent
upon each anniversary. It became a sort of symbol. On the other hand,
Hrank is gone. There’s no leader anymore. It caused the movement to
atomize. Everyone remains in his corner, disorganized. There is the
Foundation, there are initiatives, and all this quite positive, but
still it’s a beheaded battlefront.

Maybe this time, a `head’ should be found among Turkish intellectuals…

Certainly. At the head of a protest movement, asking for a wider
democracy, for certain things to be recognized in Turkey, you
shouldn’t have an Armenian. Hrant was a Turkish citizen, granted, but
the leader should be a citizen who cannot be blamed for being
`Armenian sperm’ or Kurdish. That’s also what is difficult in Turkey
because you’re immediately accused, old time reflexes and exclusions
spring up again, so if it’s a Turk, at least it will be less acute.

It will also have another meaning.

Yes. It will show the maturing of the Turkish civil society, which
dares unveil itself. It definitely exists among journalists,
intellectuals and artists. I’m convinced of that. Osman Kavala makes
things happen in his own way, as a cultural entrepreneur – huge and
unbelievable things. And he’ll go on doing it. But others are needed.

Six years later, how do you view the general and political situation
in Turkey? Has public awareness concerning these issues progressed?

I think we don’t have enough perspective on this yet. But there are
halts, times for maturing, understanding and digesting. I also think
that we’re currently living the time it takes to prepare a response.
Which forms will it take? I know a few, but not all of them. Artists
will express themselves in the coming months. There is a new
generation of intellectuals, younger, more mature, who are not
university professors, journalists or stars, and who have freer hands.
Because I have reached a certain age, I know what it means to put
one’s fame at stake, to fear losing one’s place. There is
self-censorship. You need people who are not into self-censorship
because they have nothing to lose. That’s why I’m implementing a new
project to let very young filmmakers from very different countries
talk, for instance, about the idea of Diaspora.

At some point, you were quite critical of the fact that the dialogue
in Turkey was not moving ahead. What do you think of it today?

It’s easy to criticize or note what is. But you must above all try and
understand the reasons, particularly the underlying reasons. When
great things are born, it takes some time before they are assimilated
and a new language is found. To eternally repeat themselves it tiring
to people and doesn’t bring them much. This is why I mentioned new
generations. Those who express themselves at the moment are over 50.
They have lived through pivotal, politically crucial eras – of
opening, of murder, and other events. But today, the new generation
views this in its own way. Naturally, older intellectuals should keep
on expressing themselves, but I think that their real role (and the
role I give myself too) it to pass on the torch. It’s to encourage the
young – i.e. those between 25 and 35, with a real conscience and who
study the situation, to reach a new way of voicing change.
Intellectuals should stop taking up all the space. We never stop
repeating the same things. Discovery comes from fresh, innocent
wording. The current stalemate should lead to more reflection. People
should be encouraged to write and speak up on deeper issues.

On the eve of 2015, which trend will carry more weight: that of
thousands of people remembering Hrant Dink six years later, or
demonstrations brandishing placards that read: `You’re all Armenians,
you’re all bastards’? What is your feeling?

I feel that it will be an important time. But I’m worried that it
might be a façade battle and that in-depth thinking will be lost.
Turning a cause into slogans can also reveal things to people who
don’t hear anything else. But the battle will probably get interesting
when young Turkish directors from Turkey or Germany reveal their
feature or documentary films to the face of the world. It’s their
expression that will make a difference, not that of Armenians. It’s
the voice of Turkey in the global sense of the term – that is of Turks
living here and there – who will reveal their position in relation to
this story in a more powerful way than usual. It may be through
painting, filmmaking, literature, through a political or philosophical
work, or some form of political public speaking. There are many
projects throughout Armenia and the Diaspora, but it’s not what will
be interesting. What would be unexpected is a film by a renowned young
film director or the book of a young writer – in both cases someone
living in Istanbul. That’s what would make a difference. And maybe
also events in Turkey that would be slightly different than those on
24th April, with clear positioning, with colloquiums – although let’s
not forget that there were some already, but they should have more
visibility, involve the larger public.

One of Hrant’s dreams was to see Armenian and Turkish artists sing
together on the same stage. Will that dream come true if we get to see
Anush, the opera you’re working on in Istanbul?

It will be one of the elements. Anush is a dream project to show
certain things. It was written originally by an Armenian as a poem,
and taken up by an Armenian composer living between Yerevan, Tbilisi,
Gyumri (Alexandropol) and Istanbul, and it has already been performed
in Turkish. I haven’t located the Turkish text yet, but we’ll
certainly manage to do so. It’s a dream project to say: this show
happened before the Genocide, it happened after the Genocide, and it
is happening now, in a more open way, for everyone to see. Because a
guy who doesn’t live either in Yerevan or Istanbul anymore, but in
Paris, decided to revive and dust off a popular work, which speaks to
absolutely everyone. It speaks to Turkey as well as to Armenia. The
opera Anush tells stories of honour crimes which could happen in
Anatolia or the Caucasus, and takes place in unnamed mountains. I
deeply wish that in 2014, Anush comes to Istanbul and other cities,
such as Diyarbakir. It will also speak to Kurds. The opera will be
staged at the end of April in Yerevan. I do hope that it can be
programmed afterwards in Istanbul and elsewhere.

Istanbul is now part of nearly all your projects.

Absolutely. The film on Parajanov is almost ready and we’ll be in
Istanbul next spring or autumn for festivals. Parajanov will also be
heard of in Istanbul. He is someone who made a film in Armenian about
a Georgian-Azeri man during the Azerbaijani-Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh
war. Artists must be cross-boundary, they must transcend divisions. It
doesn’t mean that the problem doesn’t exist, but these works point to
the problems. The film on Parajanov will also be political, even if it
is expressed through art, through cinema and collage. The Anush opera
will also be political in its own way. As for The Last Round in
Istanbul, I hope we’ll be ready in 2015. So 2013, 2014, and 2015 will
bring three large projects towards Istanbul. Anyway, it’s one of my
places of spiritual birth. My grandfather was born a few kilometres
from Istanbul and it’s through the port of Istanbul that his ship left
back to Armenia, and through Istanbul again that we came back.
Istanbul lies at the centre.

It is required to create the language which helps people understand

Thursday, 13 June 2013

Interview with Robert Koptas

Robert Koptas the Chief Editor of Agos

We talked with Rober Koptas, the Chief Editor of Agos, about what the
newspaper transformed in Turkey, the adventure of its progress after
Hrant Dink and points to which Turkey reaches in taboo questions in
the last six years. According to Koptas; even if `it knocks its head
against a brick wall’, the newspaper, which has great contributions in
making those questions talkable in Turkey, reminds what system causes
to forget and tries to create a new language for making those
questions understandable by more people.

Could you mention your story about how you met with Agos? Were you
aware of this initiative before it was published? What did you feel
when you first held it in your hands?

I was informed about the newspaper before it was published. I was
working part-time in Aras Publishing at those times. The graphic
designer Vartan Paçacı and Brother Hrant made one of those meetings in
the Office of Aras. Vartan Paçacı shared graphic drafts of Agos which
he drew-up, with Brother Hrant. Brother Hrant also asked me `Which one
is beautiful? Which one is better? There were some designs with blue
logo, I did not like them. I smart mouth them and said `The blue one
is like a tourism guide. The re done is more like a newspaper.’ Then
when the newspaper was first published, I was happy when I saw it was
red and I took the credit for this. I remembered that I was very
excited. I remembered that I thought as `At last, we have a newspaper
which I could read in ship, train and which I could open without any
fear because it is Turkish’.

Did you know each other with Hrant Dink before?

We met firstly at that time. We did not have any intense cooperation.
I made a presentation in the conference in Bilgi University in 2005.
He took me aside and said `I follow what you did. You make good
things’. And I was very proud. He called us, the team of Aras
Publishing, for a conversation in May 2006. He said that he made the
book called `Armenians in Ottoman Empire’, which is now published by
Aras, translated and wanted to publish but he did not prefer to do so
because of the pressure on him. And he gave the book to us. I saw
Brother Hrant very nervous and exhausted at that meeting. The weight
of the pressure on him could be felt. As far as I met, he was
vivacious and lively. That time, he was not like that. This made me
sad, shocked me. I thought `How could I support him?’ I said `Let’s
write in Agos’ to myself. I request an appointment from him and he
gave me that appointment. I went and told. And he immediately said:
`Ok. Let’s start from this week but do not delay or make a limp then’.
I started to write in Agos in every week in the last days of August
2006. He was murdered 5-6 months after that.

How a point did the generality of Turkey and Armenian society placed
before Agos according to your observations?

Before Agos was published, Armenians lived introvertedly and
conservatively. There was a structure in which the Patriarchate was in
the centre, two newspapers stated the Agenda, people came together by
means of some cultural activities but the voice of the community could
not heard in any way, the community lives as does not exist, but in
which there were some officers and authorized people who was called
from the state when they are needed. But Turkey was changing.
Accordingly the structure of the Armenian society is not so
sustainable. Agos is the result of this.

When we look for Turkey, before and after Agos, it is like black and
white, especially in the context of Armenian question. Today, of
course we could not reach to the ideal point. But when we compare with
the situation before 20-30 years, there are so many people who are
aware of the fact that who Armenians are in Turkey, what sort of
problems they are faced with and what happened in the past and who
study on this point. If Agos does not exist, those were lesser, if
brother Hrant does not exist, those were the least. Agos, worked
nearly like a non-governmental organization, even sometimes like a
university assembly. An in this sense, it became one of the most
important centres of an intellectual transformation. If there is a
ground in Turkey where we could breathe, talk and communicate, of
course Agos and Hrant Dink has an important role here.

How were reactions when Agos was first published?

There were two different types of reaction in Armenians: the
predominant one was a huge support and excitement. People, whom we
could say commons/populace embraced. There was another reaction in
Armenians given by a little segment as coming out against and
refusing. There were some people who thought that it was a revilement
to Armenian culture since it was published in Turkish. Beyond this,
there were some others who protested Agos since it disturbs their
position in their own relationship based on self-interest. Because
Agos never be hypocritical for not to want this democratization and
transparency for Armenians, which it desires for Turkey.

How is it perceived in Diaspora?

It a newspaper which was followed closely by people who immigrated
from Turkey in the recent past. It does not mean so many things for
generations who immigrated many years before and who forgot Turkish.
There is such a segment for which Agos is the most important mean for
receiving news about the hometown and being fed by the hometown.

The personality of Hrant Dink has a direct affect on the way of
existence of Agos, hasn’t it?

I think it is 100%. May be at the beginning it was imperceptible, but
after a while, when Hrant Dink assumed the job on his own, he started
to manage the newspaper with his own personality and spirit. He
dominated and directed his newspaper by means of what he saw up to
day, his intellectual knowledge and his intuitions at most, in my
opinion and he was not wrong so much actually. He did this by coming
out the society more. In fact, he both strengthened his own
personality and he formed Agos by this way.

Hrant Dink believed that it is required to negotiate the ignorance and
unawareness as calling out to consciences in order to open the path
for Turkey to face with 1915. I guess Agos maintains this mission
today.

Above all, it is about to know the system which you face with. We know
how the system indoctrinates people. We know with which books students
are taught in schools by National Education system. Under these
circumstances, we think that it doesn’t make sense to blame people or
society. Here it makes sense to ensure the transformation which could
change the system. Of course we are aware of the fact that this won’t
be easy and this could only ensured by a long range challenge. It is
required both to give information in other words to remind people what
they forgot and to call them to the conscience. It exists that there
is a goal to surprise people with an Armenian approach and presence
that is not nationalist and rough and to go beyond the ordinary.

Was there any discussion on terminology concerning 1915 in Agos? For
example; `Do not say genocide, let’s use this term or let’s say such’

I do not know what was talked or discussed about this before 19th
January but before the `genocide’ was not a common word used in the
newspaper, it was used very rarely, when others quoted, I don’t
remember any other. After 19th January, there was no serious
discussion or debate about this issue, some authors used this, and
some others only quoted in news. Both Hrant Dink and Agos have no
doubt that is genocide. But on the other hand, it is not so important
for us that this is not determined as genocide. It matters for us that
this must be perceived, understood, known by Turkey society and must
be condemned in the consciences of people. For example, I used this
word especially in my columns. Of course this was the result of anger.
It was like `If they take the one who is the most peaceful one among
us, it doesn’t make sense to be peaceful’. But recently, to create a
language which shall help people who read to understand something is
important for me. May be Brother Hrant looked for this during his
entire life; his Agos adventure was passing with looking for that
language, that style. He could create naturally by means of his
personal characteristic.

Today Agos becomes a newspaper as Hrant Dink dreamed of, became a more
professional newspaper.

It is definitely more corporate, but not more professional. Subjects
became diversified; the number of pages increased and this required a
serious organization. Beforehand, it maintained as a family newspaper,
more. It became more corporate, but it has amateur spirit. It has a
desire to be Professional. This is for standing and bearing more
strongly and to be carried to the future, never to gain any profit.
The diversity of subjects increased. We do not have interest and
concern on every issue not only on Armenian question. We try to
mention developments in the World as much as we can.

Do you have any study on reader profile?

I could not give exact data but approximately 5000 Agos are sold.
Nearly 500 of those 5000 are subscribers from abroad. Nearly half of
the readers are Armenians. Those who are not Armenians gradually
increase. Our distribution network is not very wide but we go to some
other cities. For example we go to two bookstores in Diyarbakır.

In what point do you see Turkey when you look at the last 6 years passed?

One segment of the society knew Hrant Dink with his murder and
Armenian quest dominated its several dimensions by means of his death.
It became information which obtained roots that some injustices,
discriminations are a part of lives of Armenians, non-Muslims in
Turkey according to a wide range segment of the society.

In other words; people received the information of `A skilled Armenian
journalist was murdered.’ Such questions and answers that `Why this is
happened? Why was this man murdered? Because he is an Armenian’
probably influenced people deeply. There haven’t been such many people
walking in commemoration of anyone after 6 years from the murder until
today. The murder of Hrant Dink is on a critical point for cleaning
the Government. The desire for a government that does not commit an
illegal act and does not carry out such operations requires demanding
justice in this case. Of course there are some people who think that
he was murdered because he deserved it by the point of nationalist and
racist view but I believe that those are in the minority.

Where we are or not in 6 years concerning facing with 1915 or
relationships with Armenia?

I think we are in a better point for all these subjects. It is obvious
and undoubtful that we progress in terms of the preparation of society
and public. But all of those are waiting as problems to be solved. In
other words, we are passing through a process in which the challenge
continues the social ground expands and the civil area expands but
since the government does not change its attitude generally, since
school books are not changes and official propaganda is continuously
regenerated; we could not cover a distance. Although daily tides drive
us to desperation, when I look over the long run, each time I can see
that Turkey society changes for the better.

Will this process progress slowly, like knocking heads against a brick wall

I think like that because I know Turkey, the government. Even if
hardly or by brutal force; it created a society for itself and placed
some opinions in it and it is not so easy to change those opinions.
Unfortunately, Armenians throughout the World and Armenia have no
patience to wait. I could understand them so much. They are already
suffering from a pain in their hearts for 98 years. The refusal is
added and it enlarges the anger. The rhythm of them and the rhythm of
Turkey in this sense are very different from each other. But the
truth is that what is decisive shall be the rhythm of Turkey.

In Turkey, the attitude in some issues could be changed immediately
when the government decides. Shall it be optimism to expect such a
thing in this issue?

May be this could be happened about relationships with Armenia, the
international conjuncture could require this. We could pass to a
period when the border is opened and the relationship starts
immediately. It shall be salutary and advantageous. But with the
approval of genocide, I don’t think there shall be an intense external
pressure. Turkey is always an ally which is very important and
required not to be lost in the last instance. It is the last example
of that the French Constitutional Court refused the Law on Armenian
Genocide Denial. I don’t think that attitude shall change more. But, I
don’t think that this shall be `knocking our heads against a brick
wall’. I do not think this shall never be approved. May be Turkey will
never approve the genocide. But it is the witness of an important
stage that this is being talked in the society, and more people are
aware of this issue and it is written or drawn independently and
freely today. If that stage shall bring the social approval in the
future, the policy/politics shall be obliged to approve it. Especially
if the international conjuncture will coincide, approval shall be
inevitable.

TURKEY SAYS OVERTHROW OF MORSI IS UNACCEPTABLE

July 04, 2013 | 17:42

Turkish authorities called Egyptian army’s actions which resulted in
overthrow of Mohamed Morsi unacceptable.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu demanded immediate release
of Morsi and his supporters.

“Whatever the reason is, it is unacceptable that a democratically
elected government was overthrown by illegitimate means, even more,
with a military coup,” Hurriyet Daily News quotes Davotuglu.

According to Turkish media, the further actions of Turkey related
to Egyptian developments will be discussed during the meeting with
Premier Erdogan.

Earlier Al Arabiya reported that leaders of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and
UAE welcomed the Egyptian army’s efforts, which means that legitimacy
of their actions was recognized by the Arab world.

News from Armenia – NEWS.am

ECTHR RULINGS VS. ARMENIA RAISE NO CONCERNS – SENIOR LAWMAKER’S OPINION MEETS LAWYER’S CRITICISM

17:51 ~U 04.07.13

The head of the Armenian National Assembly’s Standing Committee on
State Legal Affairs says he doesn’t agree to the allegations that
the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issues most of its rulings
against the Republic of Armenia.

Speaking to Tert.am, David Harutyunyan explained that the issue
should not be a major concern for the country in the light of the
general statistics.

“Consider the fact that rulings are normally adopted in relation to
all the 47 member states. So if you have a look at the statistics,
you will see that Armenia is not absolutely in a position to make the
issue a priority,” he said. “Forty-seven countries are represented in
the ECtHR, so it is necessary to make comparisons with other states
before answering a question.”

The Armenian parliamentarian refrained from using phrases like
“winning” or “losing” a case to refer to the ECtHR rulings. “Defeat,
as a matter of fact, offers advantages to the human rights situation
in Armenia,” he noted.

Speaking of the authorities’ possible influence upon the judiciary,
Harutyunyan said that such an influence is inevitable in any country
around the world. The problem, according to him, are the checks and
balance mechanisms and the right demarcation between the two concepts.

“Such attempts are made in almost all the countries, and the balance
in those countries is protected by the legislative authorities, the
bodies exercising constitutional justice or the judiciary,” he added.

In further comments to Tert.am, Lusine Sahakyan, a lawyer dealing with
the ECtHR cases vs. Armenia, expressed disagreement to Harutyunyan’s
remark that the Court’s rulings against Armenia give no grounds
for concern. “I cannot agree with him, because Armenia is often in
breach of such rights whose violation is likely, from the outset,
to be recognized by the Court,” she said.

Referring to a statistics unveiled earlier by Alvina Gyulumyan, a
collegue at the ECtHR, Sahakyan noted that Armenia loses most cases
unlike the European countries which have 90% of claims rejected.

“I can speak of the cases which I have represented personally. We
have notifications on most; others are pending notification. I am sure
the rulings in those cases will be against the Republic of Armenia,”
she said.

The lawyer added that the rulings against Armenia have so far found
violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human
Rights ( torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
and liberty and security of a person). “Besides, there are many cases
concerning the March 1 [2008 post-election turmoil], which contain
violations of the right to free speech and freedom of assembly,”
she noted.

Armenian News – Tert.am

NKR PRESIDENT HANDED IN DIPLOMAS TO ARTSAKH STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

13:14, 3 July, 2013

YEREVAN, JULY 3, ARMENPRESS. On 3 July Artsakh Republic President Bako
Sahakyan in a solemn atmosphere handed in diplomas to a group of the
Artsakh State University students who graduated the Alma Mater with
distinction. The Central Information Department of the Artsakh Republic
President’s Office informed “Armenpress” that in his speech the Head
of the State noted that the ceremony of handing in diplomas to the
distinctive graduates of the Artsakh State University here at the
President’s Residence has become a good tradition, underlining that
the state sought to have a developed education system corresponding
to the modern standards, which was among the most important tasks we
faced.National Assembly speaker Ashot Ghoulyan, prime-minister Ara
Haroutyunyan and other officials took part at the ceremony.

CHALYAN WINS GOLD AT EUROPEAN JUNIOR WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIP

July 3, 2013 – 12:33 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – Armenia’s Andranik Chalyan (74 kg) won gold at
European Junior Wrestling Championship.

At the Skopje-hosted sporting event, the Greco-Roman wrestler got
the better of Serbian, Bulgarian, Latvian and Moldovan contenders.

In the championship finals, the wrestler beat Russia’s Adlan Akieev
to gain the gold medal.

IAEA TO ALLOCATE $1 MILLION TO ARMENIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF METROLOGY

July 03, 2013 | 05:21

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will allocate around
$1 million for modernization of National Institute of Metrology
laboratory.

Institute Director Vahan Sahakyan told Armenian News-NEWS.am that
new equipment will be used for testing and calibration of instruments
measuring radiation levels.

The modernization will take place in two stages. During the first
in August and October 2013, the institute will receive two batches
of equipment for testing the measuring instruments at the NPP,
as well as batchers for different purposes. At the second stage,
the institute plans to get the equipment for testing X-ray machines.

News from Armenia – NEWS.am

POSSIBILITY OF RESUMPTION OF MILITARY OPERATIONS IN KARABAKH IS GROWING WITH EVERY PASSING DAY, THOMAS DE WAAL THINKS
by Nana Martirosyan

ARMINFO
Wednesday, July 3, 11:12

Azerbaijan wants no resumption of military operations in
Nagorno-Karabakh, because it may lose what it has gained over the last
20 years, Thomas de Waal, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment,
said at a press conference in Yerevan on Tuesday.

The expert thinks that despite the bravado language used by Azerbaijan,
war is hardly probable in Karabakh now. However, the possibility of
resumption of military actions is growing with every passing day, he
said. Waal thinks that the Karabakh conflict is of political nature,
because it is not a priority for the Azeri society.

In the meantime, the expert said that the new Azeri generation is
more aggressive towards Armenians. He added that Russia and Turkey
are interested in the conflict settlement most of all, but their
interests diverge, so, they will exert no pressure on Baku or Yerevan.

Director of the Caucasus Institute Alexander Iskandaryan, in turn,
said that the OSCE Minsk Group cannot resolve the Karabakh conflict,
because it is not their goal. “They have three goals: to contribute
to continuation of the talks, to ensure internationalism of the peace
process and to maintain the status quo. Subsequently, it is senseless
to expect them to give any solutions”, he stressed. He added that
the Karabakh conflict is “too young” to be resolved.

To note, Thomas de Waal has come to Armenia to present the second
volume of his book “Black Garden. Armenia and Azerbaijan through
Peace and War” dedicated to the Karabakh conflict.

ARMENIA SHOULD HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST SMERCH

Azerbaijan has bought from Russia BM-30 Smerch (Tornado) heavy
multiple rocket launchers. This is a weapon of mass destruction and
is considered the best in the world. Smerch destroys targets within
an area of over 67 hectares in a second. This weapon is as terrible
as its name. Our ally sold this weapon to our enemy for the latter
not to bother to kill Armenians one by one using an axe. Azerbaijan
has calculated everything and decided that it is much cheaper to buy
Smerch than later repatriate Azeri killers with the help of Putin’s
friends all over the world. This is an ordinary feasibility study
on which business is based. And Azerbaijan and Russia, as is known,
are doing business, nothing else, and let Armenians repel negative
thoughts from them.

But the fathers of the Russian-Azeri business do not have a bad
opinion about Armenians. They don’t seem to believe that the Armenian
society may believe their tales. So, they are spreading legends about
balance and parity in the region to rule out negative thoughts in
the Armenian people.

Of course, there is no need to have negative thoughts. We must have
positive thoughts. The only positive thought in this case can be the
nuclear weapon. The Armenian people should think about nuclear weapon.

This idea may seem funny now that 35% of the Armenian population
is poor. When people have nothing to eat, it is ridiculous to think
about nuclear weapons, of course.

But the choice is obvious. Either we laugh or we wait until Smerch
gets Armenia or Artsakh from Azerbaijan. The third option is to launch
a program of development of nuclear weapon because otherwise 35% of
the Armenian poor population will be the victim of the Russian-Azeri
business.

This is not panic. Armenia should think about the prospects. It is not
out of panic that Israel is armed with a nuclear weapon. Azerbaijan
is getting armed at a fast pace. It does not have an advantage over
Armenia now but the pace is worrying, and resources are unequal.

Besides, one thing is growing evident. Political immorality and
betrayal of allies is becoming a tradition in South Caucasus. This
is the biggest danger facing Armenia. Consequently, Armenia seems to
have no alternative to nuclear weapon.

This is a long process, an economic and political process which is
complicated by the current level of corruption and stealing in the
Armenian ruling “elite” which is only able to read and understand
restaurant menus. But if this issue is not brought up today, tomorrow
it may be late. Nuclear weapon should become a public order of
Armenia. Only nuclear weapon will restore the balance of forces and
morality in the region.

In addition, those states which are interested in this conflict should
also be interested in helping Armenia with the nuclear weapon. Only
Armenia can save the South Caucasus from chaos and disappearance as
a geopolitical platform. In order to do this, Armenia needs a nuclear
weapon and political and technological support to create it.

10:53 03/07/2013 Story from Lragir.am News: