Massis Weekly Online
VOLUME 27, ISSUE 43 (1343)
– World Bank Accused Of Hushing Up Armenian Corruption Scandal
– Yerevan Press Club Deplores Unprecedented TV Bias Against Ter-Petrosian
– Armenia-Fund Telethon Raises More Than $15 Million In Donations
– Mrs. Evans: ?We Left Armenia With Sadness But With The Knowledge
That We Did The Best Job We Could Have?
– Genocide Denial: A Case of Selective Moral Disengagement
– New Tricks -An Old Question: Turkish Manipulation of The Genocide Resolution
– Book Review: Zaven Khanjian’s "Is This Home Yours or Mine?"
– Volume 16 Of The Journal For The Society For Armenian Studies Released
—————
– World Bank Accused Of Hushing Up Armenian Corruption Scandal
YEREVAN — A U.S. anti-corruption watchdog joined on Thursday a
British whistleblower in accusing the World Bank of covering up what
they see as gross misuse of a $30 million loan that was meant to
upgrade Armenia?s battered water infrastructure.
The loan was part of a 1999 World Bank project designed to quickly
improve supplies of drinking water in Yerevan. The Armenian parliament
formed in 2003 an ad hoc commission to investigate the effectiveness
of these and other large-scale infrastructure projects financed by
Western donors.
In its first report made public in March 2004, the commission
concluded that the water scheme has failed to achieve its main
objectives due to mismanagement and corruption among government
officials and private firms. The report also deplored the fact that 27
percent of the World Bank funds have been spent on project management,
overheads and logistics.
The World Bank dismissed the claims at the time, insisting that the
project?s implementation has been a success. Earlier this year it was
again put on the defensive by Bruce Tasker, a Yerevan-based British
engineer who had participated in the 2003-2004 parliamentary inquiry
as an expert. Tasker detailed those allegations on his website and
effectively implicated the World Bank in the alleged corruption.
The allegations were picked up by the Government Accountability
Project (GAP), a Washington-based group that specializes in
whistleblower protection and scrutinizes World Bank projects around
the world. It urged the bank?s Institutional Integrity Department
(INT) to launch an official investigation.
The GAP?s international director, Beatrice Edwards, said on Thursday
that she and Tasker spent the past two days meeting with U.S. and
British diplomats and the head of the World Bank?s Yerevan office,
Aristomene Varoudakis. She said the latter again denied any wrongdoing
on the part of his lending institution.
?Mr. Tasker produced two documents that show quite clearly that there
was corruption and fraud in the municipal development project, and we
were told that these documents signified nothing of importance,?
Edwards told a news conference in Yerevan.
?Mr. Vardoulakis told us to go to the Department of Institutional
Integrity where we have already been,? she said, adding that the
department has told the GAP that the fraud case is a ?medium priority?
for it. This means that the case will not be investigated by the INT
anytime soon, she said.
?The INT basically defends the interests of the bank with respect to
this claim. And often there are reprisals against those who make the
claims of corruption within the bank,? Tasker charged. Edwards and
Tasker said they also urged the British ambassador to Armenia, Anthony
Cantor, to seek criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom against two
British nationals which they claim were involved in the alleged
embezzlement. They referred to Roger Robinson, the World Bank?s former
representative to Armenia, and Richard Walking, the former manager of
the Yerevan water network who oversaw use of the loan. They alleged in
particular that Robinson withheld key facts relating to the affair
>From his Washington bosses.
Cantor already urged the World Bank, Armenia?s number one lender, to
investigate Tasker?s claims last September. The loan?s disbursement
was tied to the Armenian government?s sweeping reform and
restructuring of the country?s obsolete water and sewerage network. As
part of that reform, hundreds of thousands of Armenian households had
to buy and install water meters in their homes at their own expense.
The government had promised that, as a result, virtually all Yerevan
residents will have running water 24 hours a day by 2004. It clearly
failed to fulfill the pledge.
Tasker claims that the installation of water meters was a major source
of corruption among Armenian and foreign officials as well as private
firms involved in the project?s implementation. He says local
contractors alone were able to pocket up to $10 profit on the sale of
each meter by charging customers for installation.
Veolia Eau, the French utility giant running the Yerevan network, now
says that it will need a decade to ensure 24-hour water to the vast
majority of local households. The operator argues that as much as 80
percent of drinking waters leaks out of eroding pipes before reaching
consumers. The World Bank funds were supposed to significantly reduce
the huge losses.
– Yerevan Press Club Deplores Unprecedented TV Bias Against Ter-Petrosian
YEREVAN — A leading media watchdog slammed Armenia?s main
broadcasters on Thursday for aggressively promoting Prime Minister
Serzh Sarkisian?s presidential candidacy and showing what it described
as unprecedented bias against his most bitter challenger, former
President Levon Ter-Petrosian.
The Yerevan Press Club (YPC) voiced the criticism while presenting the
findings of a month-long monitoring of their coverage of the unfolding
presidential election campaign. The monitoring conducted in October
concluded that the Armenian Public Television and Radio (HHHR) as well
as the country?s six largest private networks failed to air objective
election-related information by casting Sarkisian in a highly positive
light and attacking Ter-Petrosian with unusual ferocity.
?I don?t remember any previous media monitoring which showed a
politician getting such negative coverage several months before
elections,? said Boris Navasardian, the YPC chairman. Navasardian was
particularly critical of the Public Television?s H1 channel, the most
accessible media outlet in Armenia. ?H1 is now a state within a state
that operates beyond law,? he said.
H1, which is controlled by Robert Kocharian, has been particularly
scathing about Ter-Petrosian?s decision to stand in the February 19
election and his harsh verbal attacks on Armenia?s current leadership.
It has provided few details of his recent lengthy speech and has
focused instead on airing negative comments on the ex-president. The
major private TV channels, which are also loyal to Kocharian and
Sarkisian, have been equally critical of his return to active politics.
The broadcasters? coverage of previous Armenian elections was strongly
criticized by Western election monitors. According to Navasardian, it
is now becoming even more tendentious and biased. ?Compared with the
previous pre-election periods there is definitely regress in news
coverage,? he said.
Aleksandr Arzumanian, a former foreign minister and close
Ter-Petrosian associate, accused the Armenian authorities of imposing
an ?information blockade? on the opposition candidate. ?A legitimate
government would not be afraid of seeing its opponents speak on TV,?
he said. Arzumanian complained that no TV channel has tried to
interview Ter-Petrosian or invited him to a talk show so far.
Navasardian pointed out, however, that the former president is not
known for his openness to the media and has not given a single
interview even to pro-opposition newspapers since ending his
decade-long silence in September. ?Has any of you tried to have an
interview with Levon Ter-Petrosian?? he asked journalists.
– Armenia-Fund Telethon Raises More Than $15 Million In Donations
LOS ANGELES — The 10th annual Armenia-Fund telethon raised more than
$15.3 million in donation pledges from Armenians in the United States
and other parts of the world, up from $13.7 million raised last year.
The 12-hour televised fundraiser featured Armenian Foreign Minister
Vartan Oskanian, Karabakh President Bako Sahakian and prominent
Diaspora figures urging viewers to continue to support their ?homeland.?
The telethon was aired internationally from the studios of the Los
Angeles affilate of the Public Broadcasting Service, KCET-TV in
Hollywood. This year’s collected funds will be used for upgrading
rural infrastructure in Karabakh and Tavush province in northeastern
Armenia.
Several wealthy Armenian-American businessmen and philanthropists
again accounted for a large part of the telethon donations,
contributing between $500,000 and $1 million each. The collected total
includes $1.6 million pledged by the Armenian community in France and
$1.2 million from Armenia itself. The Yerevan-based contributors are
mainly firms.
Proceeds from the several previous Armenia-Fund telethons were mainly
channeled into the construction of a 170-kilometer road linking the
northern and southern parts of Karabakh. Work on the ?backbone
highway? got underway in 2000 and was due to be essentially complete
this year. With an estimated cost of $25 million, it is the single
largest infrastructure project implemented by the fund during its
15-year existence. Since 1991, Armenia Fund has rendered more than
$160 million in short term humanitarian aid as well as long term
infrastructure development projects.
– Mrs. Evans: ?We Left Armenia With Sadness But With The Knowledge
That We Did The Best Job We Could Have?
WASHINGTON, DC — In her first public address since her husband
Ambassador John M. Evans acknowledged the Armenian Genocide, Donna
Evans spoke candidly about the emotional turmoil she went through
during this period. ?This was the most traumatic time of my life,?
Mrs. Evans said at the Armenian Assembly?s annual year-end briefing at
the Armenian Embassy on November 18th.
Mrs. Evans, who accompanied her husband to the Republic of Armenia
>From 2004 to 2006, recalled being ?stunned at first, but then very
proud,? when her husband informed her in 2005 of his plans to
characterize the events of 1915 as ?genocide? during public forum with
Armenians in the U.S. ?I hoped that telling the truth would result in
no more than a reprimand and that he would be marginalized for a
while,? Mrs. Evans said. ?I thought that losing his job was the very
worst case scenario.?
When the Ambassador?s comments were reported in the press, Mrs. Evans
said the couple did not know whether his recall orders would be
awaiting him in Yerevan. ?Each morning he arrived at the office
wondering if the morning e-mail and telegram traffic would include his
official recall,? Mrs. Evans said. She was heartened, however, by the
support her husband received from prominent Armenian-Americans, the
Armenian Assembly, family and friends.
Mrs. Evans said she was furious when her husband received orders in
July 2005 to return to Washington. ?We left Armenia with sadness but
with the knowledge that we did the best job we could have under the
circumstance,? she said.
In May 2006, the White House announced it had nominated Richard E.
Hoagland to replace the outgoing Ambassador. The nomination was
ultimately withdrawn, however, after Senator Robert Menendez, (D-NJ)
placed a ?hold? following Hoagland?s refusal to properly acknowledge
the Armenian Genocide during his confirmation process.
Mrs. Evans also discussed the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.
Res.106) currently pending before Congress. She said she celebrated
when the House Foreign Affairs Committee approved the measure last
month, but was outraged when eight former Secretaries of State sent a
letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) expressing their
opposition to the resolution.
?What followed was the worst turn of events that I had witnessed in
all my time in Washington,? Mrs. Evans said. ?What we were witnessing
was a hyper overkill of a human rights issue.? Mrs. Evans, who
describes herself as an optimist, encouraged Armenian-Americans not to
give up the fight for reaffirmation of the Genocide. ?History can be
changed by repeating the truth,? she said. ?Grassroots support is
vital. You are vital. This issue needs to resolved.?
– Genocide Denial: A Case of Selective Moral Disengagement
By Hrayr S. Karagueuzian, PhD
It is becoming increasingly clear that Turkey will remain determined
to continue denying its past crimes against humanity. This does not
come as news. But what is news is that the recently developed model of
human sociocognitive behavior by Albert Bandura of Stanford
University, ?selective moral disengagement,? provides an insight into
the mechanisms by which this transgressive behavior is realized.
Turkey?s planned extermination and forced deportation of its entire
Armenian population in the 1915-1923 period does not seem to neither
deter nor detract Turkey?s global political discourse. How
extraordinary that the Turkish officials and dignitaries could speak
such truths in 1918, could fully admit in their own parliament to the
genocide of the Armenians and could read editorials in Turkish
newspapers of the great crimes committed against this Christian
people. Yet how much more extraordinary that their successors today
maintain that all of this is a myth, that anyone who says in present
day Istanbul what the men of 1918 admitted can find themselves facing
prosecution under the notorious Law 301 for ?defaming? Turkey and
insulting ?Turkishness.?
The model of moral disengagement exposes in no ambiguous terms the
means by which the perpetrator (Turkey) and its supporters (Turkey?s
lobbyists and paid consultants in Washington) allow themselves to be
party to inhumane acts while at the same time shielding themselves
>From self-condemnation. In moral disengagement, ?moral? or ?moral
agency? is defined as ?the power to refrain from inhumane acts while
at the same time exercising the power to behave humanely.?
Moral disengagement centers on the ?sociocognitive restructuring? of
human thinking that seeks to convert a criminal conduct into a benign
and worthy cause. This misbehavior according to Bandura can be
achieved by different methods, means and processes including
sanitizing the language used to define the crime, diffusing and
displacing of responsibility to others, disregarding the consequences
of the harm, attributing the blame to others and dehumanizing those
who are victimized. Many inhumanities, argues Bandura, operate through
a ?supportive network of legitimate enterprises run by otherwise
considerate people? who contribute to ?destructive activities.? For
example, the American Turkish Council (ATC), which operates tax-free
in the U.S., is one of the most powerful ?nonprofit? associations in
the U.S. reaching the highest echelons of our government.
While the ATC is an association in name and in charter, the reality is
that it and other affiliated associations are the U.S. government,
lobbyists and foreign agents, and retired U.S military officers,
according to former FBI analyst and activist Sibel Edmonds, (the ACLU
portrayed her as a ?Patriot Silenced?). The Washington-based Turkish
lobby has an extraordinary group of elite and interconnected
Republicans, Democrats, corporate and military heavyweights. The ATC
played a key role to prevent the recent U.S. Foreign Affairs
Committee?s recommendation to use the word ?genocide? resulting in
temporary suspension of a vote on the floor of the House. Despite a
virtual majority vote assured, intense pressure by the ATC and others
a full vote remains postponed.
The ATC is led by Ret. General Brent Scowcroft (Chairman of the
Board); other board members include former National Security Advisor
Sandy Berger, a multitude of corporate executives including the Cohen
Group founded by former Sec. of Defense William Cohen. It is worth
noting that the ATC list of paying clients include Mr. Cohen?s lobby
venture that serves as foreign agent for several influences without
having to register as such and with complete immunity against any
scrutiny, reminds us Ms. Edmond.
Mr. Cohen?s Group is now publicly engaged in a similar act of
selective moral disengagement utilizing a yet different order of
instrument. Mr. Cohen co-chairs with Mrs. Madeleine Albright, former
Sec. of State, the Genocide Prevention Task Force formed by the U.S.
Holocaust Museum and Memorial, U.S. Institute for Peace and the
American Academy of Diplomacy. In a defiant stand to a 1984 U.N.
sub-commission resolution, Mr. Cohen and his co-chair refused to use
the word genocide to portray the 1915 planned extermination of the
Armenian minority in Turkey.
Paragraph 24 of the U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination & Protection of the Minorities, reads in part:
?The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of
genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be
cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904, the
Ottoman massacres of Armenians in 1915-1916, the Ukranian pogrom of
Jews in 1919, the Tutsi massacres of Hutu in Burunda, in 1965 and
1972, the Paraguayan massacres of the Arche Indians prior to 1974, the
Khmer Rouge massacres in Kampuchea between 1975 and 1978 and the
contemporary killings of Baha?is.?
Mr. Cohen and Mrs. Albright justify their socially alienating and
harmful conduct by the method of diffusion and displacement of
responsibility to others, a well-grounded mechanism of moral
disengagement. ?Eight former U.S. Secretaries of States already
rejected the use of the word ?genocide?? was the response of the two
former secretaries.
Another mechanism these two former Government officials us is
obfuscation. They insist that use of the word genocide ?Will put the
lives of our sons and daughters in greater risk in Iraq.? Finally, the
co-chairs used the method of language sanitization to justify their
morally disengaged conduct: ?Yes terrible things happened in the past
but this is for the future.?
How Turkey and the ATC manage to shield themselves against-self
incrimination? This is accomplished by way of denial, rebuttal and
suppression evidence indicative of past crimes. For example, one of
the six stated goals of the ATC at its website is: ?To increase the
understanding and appreciation of the history, culture and traditions
of the United States and Turkey.? The fact of the matter is that
scholarly study of Turkey?s late 19th and 20th century historical
events, during and after the World War I, constitutes a crime in
Turkey that is punishable by law (notorious Law 301). For example, the
recent book by the exiled Turkish historian Taner Akcam, ?A Shameful
Act:
The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility?
(Metropolitan Books, 2006) show how post-1923 Turkish Government
officials occupying ministerial positions in ?Modern Turkey?
participated in the crimes committed during 1915-1923 period. Not only
exposing the historical events of this period is a taboo but also
according to then Turkish Interior Minister, Jemil Cicek, constitutes
an ?act of treason designed to stab Turkey from the back.?
This statement was made by the Mr. Cicek in 2005 on the eve of his
failed attempt to block an academic gathering in Istanbul designed to
learn about the Armenians during the final days of the Ottoman Empire,
organized and attended exclusively by Turkish scholars.
Turkey continues its policy of moral disengagement using all the
mechanisms available to shield cognitive transgressions including the
method of advantageous exonerative comparison, sanitizing euphemisms
and dehumanization, a process that portrays the victims with demonic
qualities. The Turks declare that ?two and a half million Moslems also
died,? implying that 1.5 million death of the Armenians, is
?expected.? This exonerative comparison is fraudulent as the
quasi-totality of the Armenian population was already murdered and
deported during a space of 9 months (April 1915 to January 1916) at a
time when only few thousand Turkish casualties were made at the
Russian front with higher number Turkish deaths occurring only two
years later during confrontation with the advancing British forces
that is long after the Armenians had vanished. This exonerative
comparison is also effective because the use of the word ?Moslems? as
opposed to ?Turks? inflames Moslem passion and mobilizes Islam to
rally behind Turkey. The second mechanism used by Turkey is sanitizing
euphemism.
The forced deportations (death marches in the deserts) are now
portrayed by the Turkish Grand Vizier (Prime Minister), Racip Erdogan
at the National Press Conference in November 2007, as a measure of
?relocation to safer areas.? We know that as early as January 1916,
then the Turkish Interior Minister and later Grand Vizier, Talat Pasha
had requested from American and European insurance companies the names
of all their insured Armenians on the promise that they were all dead,
their inheritors were dead and no one was left to collect the
benefits, so all the proceeds now belonged to the Turkish Treasury.
Finally, the old method of dehumanizing the victims continues to be a
vital mechanism of moral disengagement that is effectively and
successfully used in Turkey. The victims are portrayed as traitors
working with the enemy, they are infidels (because they are not
Moslems), they are spies, microbes, swines and the like.
Today while the struggle between the forces of inhumanity and the
forces humanity continues it still essentially remains an asymmetrical
battle. The call for recognition and restitution remains solely an
Armenian Diasporan event (David) against all too powerful and
well-financed military, corporate, defense enterprises that have
strong State and Government supports (Goliath). The recent bipartisan
call by the House Foreign Affairs Committee to recognize the crimes as
Genocide was perhaps just a spark that comforted the souls in the mass
graves in Syrian deserts of Der Zor, beneath the soil of eastern
Turkey and at the bottom of the Euphrates River and the Black Sea. The
recent ATC attempts to block House resolution to recognize the
Genocide is akin to implementing the infamous Turkish Law 301 in the
U.S. This is clearly a setback but insufficient to break the will of
the people to tell the truth. Perhaps more importantly, the U.S.
National Archives with thick layers of first-hand evidence of race
extermination, and the reality that Rapahel Lempkin?s coining of the
word ?genocide? in 1944 that was linked to and inspired by the mass
murder of the Armenians and the Jews will remain with us as a constant
reminder that the souls in the mass graves will not be forgotten. The
struggle for recognition, compensation and restitution is now facing
yet a new hurdle: a Turkish lobby in the U.S. empowered to recommend
policy and decisions ?to prevent future genocides.?
Hrayr S. Karagueuzian, PhD
is Professor of Medicine & Director
Translational Arrhythmia Research
Laboratory at UCLA
– New Tricks -An Old Question: Turkish Manipulation of The Genocide Resolution
By Gregory H. Arabian
Maturity and experience provide perspective regarding the frustration
experienced by Armenians from Turkish political manipulation of our
Congress and President in handling Armenian Genocide Resolution, House
and Senate Bill 106. I previously wrote ? and correctly predicted the
result. Based upon the political history of our Congress and our
Presidents from Nixon to Clinton to Bush, whether Democrat or
Republican: the result has been the same: the resolution was taken off
the agenda, not allowed on the House for a vote, and now is
?postponed? for a more auspicious time. Slam Dunk for the Turks.
The latest attack on the Resolution came from an old, often-used but
rather worn out phrase description of Turkey as a ?loyal ally.? What
rubbish. Ask the 4th Infantry Division about our ?loyal ally? who
prevented us from using Incirlik to support our troops in Northern
Iraq. Search your own news stories for the real reason that Turkey
chose not to become involved ? money, and nothing else. News stories
at the time clearly described that Turkey required a much higher level
of ?financial aid? (I call it a bribe) before its parliament could OK
the use of our base at Incirlik. We correctly chose not to pay that
bribe; Turkey refused us the use of Incirlik. Some ?loyal ally.?
Search the conditions under which our ?loyal ally? has allowed us to
use Incirlik in any manner; one of the most important conditions
involves money ? every takeoff, every landing, every significant use,
day by day, is assessed and paid in US dollars. I could go on, but it
gets so frustrating to have governmental officials pontificate about
our ?loyal ally? that it makes me sick.
Recently, Walter Kirk was quoted as repeating the oft ? repeated
arguments against passing the Genocide resolution, including its
relevancy to US foreign policy. Why bother with this question that
?does not concern us? he says? Why bother with an issue that is
totally foreign to the US and which interferes with our own domestic
programs and agenda? Why indeed? It is very important that this
question be addressed as often as it is posed, and the answer is this:
the genocide took place during World War I, when Turkey was NOT a
loyal ally, but an enemy. History itself bears witness that Turkey was
a dedicated Axis Power, a ?loyal ally? of the Central Powers,
including Germany, fighting against the western powers. Idiots or
Turkophiles like Kirk want the world to forget the relevance of the
Genocide itself. Further, not only was Turkey our enemy in 1915
forward; it was a defeated enemy. Its defeat was due, in part, to the
resistance of the Armenian forces against the Central Powers;
Armenians declared their loyalty to the Western Powers and prevented
them from reaching the rich oil fields of Baku to provide much needed
petrol resources for the Axis Wermacht. The failure of the Central
Powers in this regard caused their collapse and contributed to the
victory we celebrate today as Armistice Day, or Veterans Day. The
Armenian Genocide occurred in the midst of this Armenian Contribution
to the Western Powers? victory.
The payback was the collapse of the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, the insult
of the replacing Treaty of Lausanne, and the breakup of Wilsonian
Armenia, followed by the slide of the Armenian People into the abyss
of a depopulated western Armenia and the Russification of Eastern
Armenia. So answer me, Mr. Kirk and your Turkophiles: who was our
?loyal ally? in those days ? Turkey or Armenia? Indeed, tell me: what
indeed does the US, as a Western Power, owe to Armenia? Perhaps your
history book might give you a clue.
– Book Review: Zaven Khanjian’s "Is This Home Yours or Mine?"
By Aris G. Sevag
Zaven Khanjian. Ays Dune Kugt E Te Ims? Ukhdaknatsutiun tebi
Arevmdahayasdan, Giligia yev Bolis, Orakri Echer [Is This Home Yours
or Mine?: Pilgrimage to Western Armenia, Cilicia and Constantinople,
Pages from my Diary]. Los Angeles, CA, 2007. Introduction by Stepan
Alajajian. 265 pp. Hardback.
Departing from Yerevan on September 22, 2006, Zaven Khanjian, well
known and respected leader in the Armenian community of Southern
California and the author of this book, embarked on an 18-day tour of
Western Armenia, Cilicia and Constantinople, led by Armen Aroyan.
On Thursday, September 28, Zaven, accompanied by his wife Sona and a
few others, visited the village of Aghen (Agin) near Arapgir, his
father?s birthplace, and found the house in which his father, Vazken
Dikran Khanjian, was born the night of December 31, 1912. The current
owner, a Turk named Hussein, who is a retired bank employee, told the
author that his father had purchased the house from the government in
1936. Hussein had met Zaven?s father in 1969, when the latter had gone
there for a visit, and Hussein?s mother had welcomed the author?s
older sister Laura in 1994.
Therefore, he knew quite a bit about the Khanjian family and offered
the use of his home to the Khanjians whenever and for as long as they
wished. Together, Zaven and Hussein planted a walnut tree in the back
yard in memory of his father and all those Armenians who perished
during the Armenian Genocide. Before Khanjian left, Hussein asked him,
?Now tell me, is this home yours or mine??
This question, which the author chose as the title of his book,
pertains not only to just his paternal home but, in a broader sense,
to all the ancestral Armenian lands, known collectively as Western
Armenia, which have been possessed by Turkey for close to a century now.
In the epilogue entitled ?Yev Hima Inch? (And What Now?), Khanjian
states that ?every Armenian naturally, understandably and justifiably
rejects the idea of visiting Turkey? and that applied to him too. The
change in his attitude was brought on by circumstances and changing
times: push for international recognition of the Armenian Genocide
that began with its 50th anniversary; easing of travel restrictions in
Turkey and the trickle of visitors there, starting in the 1960?s;
availability of organized tours led by Armen Aroyan as of the early
1990?s; greater public awareness of historical Armenian towns and
villages brought about through the series of conferences dedicated to
them, organized by Prof. Richard Hovannisian at UCLA, beginning in the
mid-1990?s; writings of Kemal Yalchin and others, about the growing
awareness among Turks about the Armenian Genocide and, in some cases,
their Armenian ancestry. However, what finally made him change his
mind was that he had found a common denominator with Turks: the
majority of them, as well as he, were opposed to the American
occupation of Iraq, which had begun with the 2003 invasion. After
Zaven Khanjian went, saw and experienced historical Armenia and the
people living there, it is his wish that ?we all share my feelings,
renew our oath of fidelity to our grandfathers and confirm our feeling
of belongingness?Every meeting, communication, contact and
conversation during these pilgrimages accomplishes two things:
1. It kindles the fire of awareness of belongingness in all those, who
disappeared from the Armenian lands and whose remaining generations,
however, still live there.
2. It arouses curiosity in the minds of those living on our lands,
first to find out who these Armenian visitors are and why they have
come, then to ask why they aren?t living here and how they disappeared.?
Not surprisingly, Khanjian writes, ?All that was is practically
non-existent today?The natural first reaction to the awareness of this
terrific loss must be the pursuit of our just demands. Recognition of
the Genocide, reparations for damages to the heirs of the victims of
the Genocide, expression of forgiveness to the Armenian people and,
finally, return of territory.?
In a program held at the Glendale Public Library on July 12, 2007 to
formally present Khanjian?s book to the public, Sarkis Majarian,
foundereditor-publisher of Nor Hye [New Armenian] weekly, compared it
to the travelogues of Tlgadintsi, Karekin Srvandzdiants and Father
Ghevont Alishan, saying, ?The book Is ThisHome Yours or Mine? is
carefully written and well thought out; it has a unique style, and
reflects a highly patriotic spirit. It is an important contribution to
our body of travel literature.? (Massis Weekly, July 28, 2007)
This first book by Zaven Khanjian was originally published in serial
form in Asbarez Daily (January 27 ? April 21, 2007) under the title
?Kele Ertank Mur Erkir? (Come On, Let?s Go to Our Country), which
later became the title of Chapter 7, devoted to the portion of the
journey involving Mush and Bitlis.
It has enjoyed such popularity that there are only a few copies left
>From the first printing, making a second printing quite probable.
Unfortunately, like its predecessors ? Kh. N. Kavar, Hin Garodneru
Jampov [On the Road of Old Longings] (1973), Archpriest Sarkis
Antreassian, Darakirn uHayrenike Tem Timats [The Exile and the
Homeland, Face to Face] (1995), and Bedros Zobyan, Tebi Bitlis William
Saroyani Hed [Toward Bitlis with William Saroyan] (2003) ? it is
accessible only to the Armenian reader. A book of such merit and
importance should be translated into English so it can be enjoyed by
the younger generation.
Copies of Is This Home Yours or Mine? can be obtained from the
Armenian bookstores in Greater Los Angeles, bookstore of the Diocese
of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern) in New York, or the
author: [email protected]
– Volume 16 Of The Journal For The Society For Armenian Studies Released
FRESNO — The Society for Armenian Studies announces the publication
of volume 16 of the Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies. This
latest volume includes eight articles and fourteen book reviews.
Dr. John Greppin of Cleveland State University served as the editor
and Dr. Peter Cowe, Narekatsi Professor of Armenian Studies at UCLA,
as the book review editor. The eight articles are as follows:
1. Matthew Jendian (California State University, Fresno),
?Intermarriage and Ethnic Boundaries of Armenian- Americans in Central
California.?
2. Armen Petrosyan (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography,
Yerevan), ?The Problem of Identification of the Proto-Armenians: A
Critical Survey.?
3. John A.C. Greppin (Cleveland State University), ?Some New Ideas on
the Status of the Urartian Language in Armenian.?
4. Hagop Gulludjian (UCLA), ?On Armenian Parallels to Beowulf.?
5. Simon Payaslian (Boston University), ?Hovhannes Shiraz, Paruyr
Sevak, and the Memory of the Armenian Genocide.?
6. Earl R. Anderson (Cleveland State University), ?Traditional Epic
Themes in the Armenian Sasna Crer.?
7, George Bournoutian (Iona College), ?Five Armenian Chronicles of the
17th-18th Centuries.?
8. Artyom Kosmarski and Nona Shahnazaryan (Central European
University, Budapest, Hungary and Kuban State University, Krasnodar,
Russia), ?Krasnodar, Karabakh, Moscow: Reflections on a Post-Soviet
Anthropologist at Home/in the Field.?
The fourteen book reviews in JSAS 16 cover a broad spectrum of works
related to Armenian studies.
Dr. Joseph Kéchichian of Los Angeles has been appointed the editor of
JSAS beginning with volume 17 (2008). The JSAS welcomes articles for
consideration and books in the field for reviews. The editor can be
contacted by email at [email protected].
JSAS plays a valuable and continuing role in the dissemination of
Armenian studies throughout the academic world. The Journal reflects
the scholarship of its members and is a window to the world of
Armenian studies.
Volume 16 and previous issues (2-15) of the Journal of the Society
forArmenian Studies may be acquired by contacting the Society?s
Secretariat in care of the Armenian Studies Program at Fresno State,
5245 N Backer Ave PB4, Fresno CA 93740-8001 or call 559-278-2669 or by
email at [email protected]. The cost of each volume is $20 plus
mailing expenses.
—
Massis Weekly Online
MassisWeekly.com
1060 N. Allen Ave, Suite 203
Pasadena, CA 91104
Tel. 626.797.7680
Fax. 626.797.6863
http://MassisWeekly.com