Author: Nahapetian Samvel

The New York Times
January 10, 2010 Sunday
Late Edition – Final

Secrets Revealed in Turkey Revive Armenian Identity

By DAN BILEFSKY; Sebnem Arsu contributed reporting.

SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 12
ISTANBUL

Fethiye Cetin recalled the day her identity shattered.

She was a young law student when her beloved maternal grandmother,
Seher, took her aside and told her a secret she had hidden for 60
years: that Seher was born a Christian Armenian with the name Heranus
and had been saved from a death march by a Turkish officer, who
snatched her from her mother’s arms in 1915 and raised her as Turkish
and Muslim.

Ms. Cetin’s grandmother, whose parents later turned out to have
escaped to New York, was just one of many Armenian children who were
kidnapped and adopted by Turkish families during the Armenian
genocide, the mass killing of more than a million Armenians by the
Ottoman Turks between 1915 and 1918. These survivors were sometimes
called ”the leftovers of the sword.”

”I was in a state of shock for a long time — I suddenly saw the
world through different eyes,” said Ms. Cetin, now 60. ”I had grown
up thinking of myself as a Turkish Muslim, not an Armenian. There had
been nothing in the history books about the massacre of a people that
had been erased from Turkey’s collective memory. Like my grandmother,
many had buried their identity — and the horrors they had seen —
deep inside of them.”

Now, however, Ms. Cetin, a prominent advocate for the estimated
50,000-member Armenian-Turkish community here and one of the country’s
leading human rights lawyers, believes a seminal moment has arrived in
which Turkey and Armenia can finally confront the ghosts of history
and possibly even overcome one of the world’s most enduring and bitter
rivalries.

She already has confronted her divided self, which led her from
Istanbul to a 10th Street grocery store in New York, where her
Armenian relatives had rebuilt their broken lives after fleeing
Turkey. (Many of the Armenians who survive in Turkey today do so
because their ancestors lived in western provinces during the
killings, which took place mostly in the east.)

The latest tentative step toward healing generations of acrimony
between the countries took place in October on a soccer field in the
northwestern Turkish city of Bursa, when President Serzh Sargsyan
became the first Armenian head of state to travel to Turkey to attend
a soccer game between the national teams. In this latest round of
soccer diplomacy, Mr. Sargsyan was joined at the match by President
Abdullah Gul of Turkey, who had traveled to a soccer match in Armenia
the year before.

”We do not write history here,” Mr. Gul told his Armenian
counterpart in Bursa. ”We are making history.”

The Bursa encounter came just days after Turkey and Armenia signed a
historic series of protocols to establish diplomatic relations and to
reopen the Turkish-Armenian border, which has been closed since 1993.
The agreement, strongly backed by the United States, the European
Union and Russia, has come under vociferous opposition from
nationalists in both Turkey and Armenia.

Armenia’s sizable diaspora — estimated at more than seven million —
in the United States, France and elsewhere is alarmed that the new
warmth may be misused as an excuse to forgive and forget in Turkey,
where even uttering the words Armenian genocide can be grounds for
prosecution.

Also threatening the deal is Armenia’s lingering fight with
Azerbaijan, its neighbor and a close ally of Turkey, over a breakaway
Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan.

The agreement, which has yet to be ratified in the Turkish or Armenian
Parliaments, could have broad consequences, helping to end landlocked
Armenia’s economic isolation, while lifting Turkey’s chances for
admission into the European Union, where the genocide issue remains a
crucial obstacle.

But Ms. Cetin argued that the most enduring consequence could be
helping to overcome mutual recriminations. She said Armenians had been
battling a powerful and collective denial in Turkish society about the
killings.

”Most people in Turkish society have no idea what happened in 1915,
and the Armenians they meet are introduced as monsters or villains or
enemies in their history books,” she said. ”Turkey has to confront
the past, but before this confrontation can happen, people must know
who they are confronting. So we need the borders to come down in order
to have dialogue.”

Ms. Cetin, who was raised by her maternal grandmother, said the
borders in her own Muslim Turkish heart came down irrevocably when her
grandmother revealed her Armenian past.

Heranus, she said, was only a child in 1915 when Turkish soldiers
arrived in her ethnically Armenian Turkish village of Maden, rounding
up the men and sequestering women and girls in a church courtyard with
high walls. When they climbed on each others’ shoulders, Heranus told
her, they saw men’s throats being cut and bodies being thrown in the
Tigris River, which ran red for days.

During the forced march toward exile that followed, Heranus said, she
saw her own grandmother drown two of her grandchildren before she
herself jumped into the water and disappeared.

Heranus’s mother, Isguhi, survived the march, which ended in Aleppo,
Syria, and went to join her husband, Hovannes, who had left the
village for New York in 1913, opening a grocery store. They started a
new family.

”My grandmother was trembling as she told me her story,” Ms. Cetin
said. ”She would always say, ‘May those days vanish, never to
return.’ ”

Ms. Cetin, a rebellious left-wing student activist at the time of her
grandmother’s revelation, recalled how confronting Armenian identity,
then as now, had been taboo. ”The same people who spoke the loudest
about injustices and screamed that the world could be a better place
would only whisper when it came to the Armenian issue,” she said.
”It really hurt me.”

Ms. Cetin, who was imprisoned for three years in the 1980s for
opposing the military regime in Turkey at the time, said her newfound
Armenian identity inspired her to become a human rights lawyer. When
Hrant Dink, editor of the Turkish-Armenian newspaper Agos, was
prosecuted in 2006 for insulting Turkishness by referring to the
genocide, she became his lawyer. On Jan. 19, 2007, Mr. Dink was killed
outside his office by a young ultranationalist.

Ms. Cetin published a memoir about her grandmother in 2004. She said
she purposely omitted the word ”genocide” from her book because
using the word erected a roadblock to reconciliation.

”I wanted to concentrate on the human dimension,” she said. ”I
wanted to question the silence of people like my grandmother who kept
their stories hidden for years, while going through the pain.”

When her grandmother died in 2000 at age 95, Ms. Cetin honored her
last wish, publishing a death notice in Agos, in the hope of tracking
down her long-lost Armenian family, including her grandmother’s sister
Margaret, whom she had never seen.

At her emotional reunion with her Armenian family in New York, several
months later, Margaret, or ”Auntie Marge,” told Ms. Cetin that when
her father had died in 1965, she had found a piece of paper carefully
folded in his wallet that he had been keeping for years. It was a
letter Heranus had written to him shortly after he had left for the
United States.

”We all keep hoping and praying that you are well,” the note said.

In Whose Interests? The Political Economy of Armenian-Turkish Relations
By Serouj Aprahamian

Asbarez
Jan 8th, 2010

This mansion belongs to just one of many millionaire oligarchs in Armenia

BY SEROUJ APRAHAMIAN and ALLEN YEKIKAN

The Turkey-Armenia Protocols ushered in an unprecedented wave of
international outcry against the policies of the Armenian government.

Massive demonstrations took place in almost every major city of the
Diaspora; 60,000 protestors took to the streets in Yerevan; leading
Armenian academics and Genocide scholars forcefully spoke out against
the Protocols; two former Foreign Ministers of Armenia came out
against the measure; 14 political parties and dozens of organizations
within Armenia signed a statement against ratification of the
documents; and the sole opinion poll taken on the issue showed that
52.4%[1] of the population in Yerevan was against the signing.

Nevertheless, the Foreign Minister of Armenia traveled to Zurich on
October 10 and signed the Protocols with his Turkish counterpart.
Today, the Armenian government vehemently calls on Turkey to ratify
the agreement, after which it promises to immediately follow suit.

Given the widespread opposition and detrimental effects the Protocols
are deemed to have on such pan-Armenian interests as Genocide
recognition, legal claims to the Armenian homeland, and the liberation
of Artsakh, many people have been left to wonder why Yerevan has
pushed forward with this controversial policy with such vigor.

Why would the Armenian government risk going against the will of the
majority of its people and give up so much in return for mere Turkish
promises of normal relations?

Who Gains, Who Loses

To find answers to this question, it’s essential to look beyond just
technical issues about what the Protocols entail and the arguments of
both its proponents and opponents. We must look, instead, at the core
interests of those in Armenia who hold the levers of power. To put it
more simply, in order to understand how policy is formed, it is
important to understand those who form policy.

By now, it should be common knowledge that decision-making in Armenia
is controlled by a small circle of elites, who dominate the country’s
political and economic landscape. Whether we look at the President’s
administration, the makeup of the National Assembly, or the heads and
support-base of political parties in the coalition government, we find
an easily distinguishable lineup of oligarchs that have woven their
noose around Armenia’s institutions and its society. What’s unique
about this social class is the magnitude of power they command, far
surpassing the influence of any other segment of the general
population. These oligarchs also share a common set of economic
interests, living standards, values, and norms of behavior. They are,
in fact, a distinct social class with tight links to one another, who
operate on a political plane detached from the general public.

When looking into the business interests of this group of people, we
find that a large number of them have made their wealth by dominating
key commodity imports (e.g. gas, wheat, oil, butter, sugar, and so
on). These business interests of the oligarchic class reflect the
makeup of Armenia’s skewed economic landscape as a whole, with imports
making up 40% of GDP, while exports only account for 10%. Meanwhile,
70% of exports are comprised of raw materials, minerals, and stones. A
large fraction of this class became rich through controlling the
mining and exporting of Armenia’s diamonds, copper, and gold, to name
a few. That virtually all of these individuals have also acquired
large tracts of land and property throughout the country is no
coincidence either, as 40% of Armenia’s annual growth is accredited to
construction and real-estate. [2]
As such, a considerable level of power is in the hands of these
oligarchs whose monopoly over key sectors of the economy has
significantly stymied the country’s economic development.

The lifting of the Turkish blockade is anticipated to further enrich
these dominant figures by allowing them to directly bring in products
over the Turkish border, rather than the more costly route currently
used through Georgia. In turn, opening the border is anticipated to
provide new opportunities for those seeking to sell Armenia’s natural
minerals in the international market. Property values and foreign
investments are also expected to rise once relations are normalized
with Turkey, placing many of those in Armenia’s oligarchic class who
possess major real-estate and retail interests in a privileged
position to reap profits.

The majority of Armenians, on the other hand, who struggle to make
ends meet as farmers, wage laborers, or small businessmen are not
likely to see much of the gains from opening the border. On the
contrary, agricultural workers and local producers stand to suffer
greatly under the weight of cheaper imports flooding in from Turkey,
while laborers are likely to witness declining or stagnating wages
under the pressure of foreign capital. Furthermore, rampant corruption
and tax evasion ensure that whatever financial gains do accrue at the
top will not be distributed down to the majority of the population.

The chairman of the Union of Domestic Manufacturers of Armenia, Vazgen
Safarian, recently explained, `On the one hand, our consumers [and
importers] will benefit from the cheap goods, but on the other hand,
this will doom our local producers to having to shut down or to
suspend operations.’ Another Yerevan businessman, who actually imports
fabrics from Turkey, stated `Then, many people will start importing
goods, maybe the prices will go down. [T]his will hit everyone, [but]
I think my business will suffer.'[3]

Vardan Ayvazyan, the head of the National Assembly’s Standing
Committee on Economic Issues has exploited his position to secure
mining licenses for himself and his family.
Edgar Helgelyan, an expert with the Mitk Analytical Center, also
weighed in on the issue. `We are seriously concerned that the opening
of the border will considerably damage the Armenian economy. Imports
from Turkey to Armenia account for about $178 million, while exports
from Armenia to Turkey do not surpass $1.8 million,’ he said during a
press conference releasing a report submitted to the Armenian
government on the subject.[4]

In other words, the much-touted `growth in GDP’ or `improvement of the
Armenian economy’ that IMF technocrats and government apologists alike
parrot as the silver bullet behind supporting the Protocols, is likely
to provide a boom for the oligarchic elite but a bust for nearly
everyone else. This might help to explain why many average citizens in
Armenia are opposed to the Protocols on economic, in addition to
national, grounds; they fear having to bare the economic costs of the
agreement while the elite reap the benefits.

This reality also helps to explain why Armenia’s leading class has
lent its unflinching support to the Protocols, with many being vocally
in favor of the move, both in parliament and in business circles.

To give one of many examples, a leading proponent of the agreements in
Armenia is Vardan Ayvazyan, the current head of the National
Assembly’s Standing Committee on Economic Issues. Throughout his years
in government, Mr. Ayvazyan has secured various mining licenses for
himself and his family, including an ironstone mine in Hrazdan and two
mines for his brother in Syunik and Lori provinces. It therefore comes
as no surprise that he repeatedly boasts about the benefits of the
protocols, claiming that, `Opening of the border can lead to 4 percent
growth of GDP’ or that the Protocols will `ensure a new economic path
for our country.’

For individuals such as Ayvazyan, who have used Armenia’s legislative
process towards their economic gains, opening the border provides new
opportunities to capitalize on the exploitation of Armenia’s natural
resources. [5] The mere fact that the agreement has advanced this far
is itself a testimony to the backing the government – many of who
themselves make up the oligarchic class – has received from Armenia’s
wealthy elite.

Indeed, in a recent interview to an Armenian newspaper, President
Serzh Sargsyan smugly stated, `I have not heard from any serious
businessperson in Armenia that has doubts of the economic benefit of
opening the border.’

Capitalism Over Nationalism

Significant profits are surely anticipated to be made in the upper
echelons of Armenian society once the borders are opened. But at what
cost are Armenia’s oligarchs willing to pursue their pocket books?
Would they be willing to give in to Turkish conditions and renounce
Armenia’s national rights for the sake of lifting the blockade?
Unfortunately, for many of the Armenian elite, national interests such
as Karabakh’s self determination, justice for the Armenian Genocide or
legal claims to historic lands do not seem to be as much of a concern
as they are for the general population.[6]

This was perhaps most famously demonstrated by the head of the
Armenian Football Federation (AFF), well-known oligarch Ruben
Hairapetyan.[7] In the run-up to the Turkish president’s visit to
Armenia for the much-touted soccer match between the two nations,
Hairapetyan suddenly removed the image of Ararat from the AFF’s
official logo, sparking a major outcry within Armenia. Although he was
later forced to reinstate the original logo with Ararat as the
centerpiece, the inherent disregard for Armenia’s national rights and
dignity was blatantly exposed by the scandal.

It should be pointed out that such a dismissive attitude towards
pan-national interests is not a new phenomenon among the ruling class
in Armenia. We saw similar sentiments expressed during the tenure of
Armenia’s first president, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, who was the chief
architect of the system of autocracy and oligopoly we presently see in
Armenia.[8] It was, thus, not surprising to see Ter-Petrosyan’s newly
formed opposition immediately suspend their protest actions against
the government in September 2008, when they learned that the Turkish
president would be coming to town for a soccer match.[9] More
recently, despite his earlier bitter denunciations of the government,
Ter-Petrosyan has praised the Sargsyan regime’s policy on
Turkish-Armenian relations and has even expressed his desire to
establish cooperation with the ruling regime.[10]

Russia’s Backyard

In addition to the economic incentives and tendency to compromise
national rights, there is an equally powerful factor to be considered
when examining the ruling elite’s support for the Protocols: alignment
with Russia.

Most of the prominent business and political elites in Armenia have
direct personal ties to business and political interests in their
former Soviet patron. We find that they either have major business
ventures in Russia or serve as the overseers of Russian capital
investments in Armenia. As one member of the ARF Western US Central
Committee recently put it, `If Armenia is Russia’s backyard, then they
[oligarchs] are the gardeners.'[11]

Indeed, Russia itself has a controlling stake in many of Armenia’s
most strategic assets – gas, oil, nuclear power, electricity,
telecommunications, rail, and finance, to name a few. It is estimated
that Russia has over $2.5 billion of economic interests in the
country. Given Armenia’s vulnerability to any instability Russia could
potentially cause in these strategically important sectors, no major
decision on the magnitude of the Protocols could be made without the
blessing of the `Big Uncle.’ The ruling elite in Armenia must pay
special heed to the wishes of Moscow if they want to avoid any
unwanted disruptions to the state and economy. Thus, it was no
accident that President Sargsyan, during a state visit to Moscow in
June 2008, extended an invitation to his Turkish counterpart to come
to Armenia for the first soccer match.

For its part, Russia has openly expressed its support for the
Protocols, with many analysts pointing out that it would be the main
beneficiary of potential energy and transportation projects between
Armenia and Turkey. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Grigori Karasin,
was recently quoted as saying, `The Russian Inter RAO EES Company,
which has energy facilities in Armenia, is exporting electricity to
Turkey and the Russian Railway CJSC is ready to ensure uninterrupted
rail communication between the two countries through the
Dogukapy-Akhuryan checkpoint.'[12] Interestingly enough, two of the
main initial projects expected to develop following the implementation
of the Protocols are the sale of Armenian electricity to Turkey and
the opening of joint railroad transportation-both of which are
Armenian industries dominated by Russia.

The Path Forward

Of course, the West is also keen to see rapprochement between Armenia
and Turkey. The heavy dependence Armenia has on Western loans and the
desire to deflect attention away from the state’s crackdowns of March
1 is surely another motivation for Armenia’s pursuit of the Protocols.

Yet, blame for the Protocols cannot be laid at the door of foreign
pressure (whether from Russia, Turkey, or the West). As Armenia’s
Foreign Minister himself explained, `All states except for one or two
supported the process and did not pressure us. It was Armenia’s
initiative. We reached the agreement jointly with Turkey.'[13]

The responsibility, thus, lies with the ruling elite in Armenia. These
elite hold the reigns of power in the country and have obvious
motivations for seeing the Turkish blockade lifted despite its costs.
In the end, the Protocols and the ensuing establishment of relations
between Armenia and Turkey are a direct reflection of the interests of
this tiny set of powerbrokers within Armenia.

The question, then, becomes how can the people act to prevent the
ruling class from negotiating away Armenian national rights? The
answer to this question lies partly in the international public
opposition against the Protocols witnessed in recent months.

The unprecedented wave of mass demonstrations organized against the
Armenian government pointed to a potential constraint on government
decision-making. Hence, the public awareness raised against the
Protocols, the delay by Nalbandian during the signing ceremony in
Zurich, and President Sargsyan’s televised public address hours before
the signing were a direct consequence of people taking to the streets
in Yerevan and capitals throughout the world.
To date, these demonstrations have been the most serious disruption to
the Armenian government’s plans for pushing through the Protocols.
Indeed, the constant secrecy, media control, and deceptive statements
issued by the government indicate their concern over the Armenian
public’s negative reaction to their policies.

By putting into question the reality of the Armenian Genocide through
a so-called historical commission, recognizing the existing
illegitimate border that forfeits legal claims to the Armenian
homeland, and compromising Armenia’s ability to defend the freedom of
Artsakh, the Protocols pose a grave threat to the Armenian Cause-a
cause considered to be paramount in the hearts and minds of Armenians
around the world.

However, protests and negative opinion alone are likely not to be
enough to stop the regime from ratifying the agreements. Public
opposition must be translated into serious organization and concerted
action in order to raise the costs high enough to be heeded by the
administration in Yerevan. The system of centralized, elite power in
Armenia must be checked by a vigilant and organized populace in order
to restrain the wreckage of the self-interested schemes of the
oligarchic elite.

The Diaspora has a special role to play in this battle. Through its
relative freedom and more abundant resources, it has an important
obligation to stand in support of those in Armenia who are genuinely
struggling to create a more just and equitable future in the Homeland.
As in the past, only by coming together collectively and reaching
beyond artificial divisions will the Armenian people succeed in
defending their pan-national interests.

Editor’s Note: This article is featured in the Winter 2010 issue of
Haytoug, a quarterly publication by the Armenian Youth Federation. The
upcoming issue is set for release in late January. It will be
available, free, at community centers, schools and local Armenian book
stores. You can also download it in PDF or sign up to receive a free
copy in the mail at

_______________ _________________________
[1] `Yerevan Survey Finds Majority Opposed to Protocols,’ ArmInfo,
September 29, 2009.
[2] Ara Nranyan, `Neoliberalism and Armenia: 18 Years of Integration
with Capitalism,’ presentation delivered at the 2009 Armenians and
Progressive Politics conference in Glendale, CA
[3] Marianna Grigoryan, `Is Yerevan Caught in a Trade Trap?’
Eurasianet, October 5, 2009. See also Hasmik Hambardzumian, `Armenians
Wary of Turkish Trade,’ Asia Times, September 29, 2009.
[4] `Opening of Border with Turkey Will Devastate Armenian
Businesses,’ PanArmenian.net, September 25, 2009. See also the
thorough, 192-page study commissioned by the ARF Bureau on the
economic impact of opening the border: Mher Dzadourian, Pavel
Hovhannisan, and Albert Babayan, `Economic-Trade Issues Surrounding
the Opening of the Armenia-Turkey Border,’ June 2009, Yerevan.
[5] Gayane Abrahamyan, `Parliament Debates Diplomatic Normalization
with Turkey,’ Eurasianet, October 1, 2009. For a background on
Ayvazyan’s interests in the mining industry, see Edik Baghdasaryan,
`Vardan Ayvazyan’s Business Project,’ Hetq, April 2, 2007.
[6] Despite the constant propaganda meted out to the contrary, people
within Armenia consistently express their support for the cause of
Genocide recognition and reparations from Turkey. See Serouj
Aprahamian, `Armenia vs. Diaspora: The Myth of Diverging Interests
Over the Genocide,’ Haytoug, Spring 2009, 6-9. In the most recent
opinion poll taken after the announcement of the Protocols, 52.4% of
Yerevan residents rejected the terms of the agreements and 41%
insisted that they want the Turkish-Armenian border to remain closed.
`Poll Finds Turkey Deal Unpopular in Yerevan,’ Asbarez, October 19,
2009.
[7] Hayrapetyan owns several businesses and is the Chairman of the
Armtobacco Company. Most recently, he took ownership of the Bjni
Mineral Water Factory in a controversial deal following the original
owner’s (oligarch Khachatur Sukiasyan) fall out with the government
over his support of Levon Ter-Petrosyan and his alleged role in the
March 1st events. See Gayane Lazarian, `The Politics of Table Water:
`National Treasure’ Bjni Changes hands in Disputed Sale,’ Armenia Now,
September 2, 2009.
[8] See Ian Bremmer and Cory Welt, `Armenia’s New Autocrats,’ Journal
of Democracy, Vol. 8, 3, July 1997, 77-91.
[9] Marianna Grigoryan, `Armenia, Turkey Put Differences Aside for
Soccer,’ Eurasianet, September 5, 2008.
[10] `Armenian Opposition Leader Backs President on Turkey,’ RFE/RL,
November 12, 2009.
[11] Town Hall Meeting on Pan-Armenian Challenges. November 19, 2009.
Encino, CA. Personal notes.
For a more historical perspective of this same phenomenon, we are
reminded of the following quote from Armenian revolutionary hero, Aram
Manukian: `That [exploitative] class is the capitalist class, which by
descent is Armenian but in fact serves as the defender of foreign and
Russian interests. They pretend to pose as the leaders of our people,
but they consider Armenians to be only a pedestal under Russian
tutelage for them to use to advance a more vibrant life. This class
has turned into a threat to the Armenian people’s unity. They have
become bait for our neighbors to use against us. They have become a
`fishing hook’ in the hands of the Russians with which to `catch’
Armenians. Although they may possess Armenian names, this class is, in
fact, our enemy.’ Roupen Der-Minassian, Memoirs of an Armenian
Revolutionary, Vol. 2.
[12] `Russia to Support Armenia-Turkey Ties With Economic Projects,’
Asbarez, November 4, 2009.
[13] `Nalbandyan Does Not Feel `Embarrassed and Insulted”, News.am,
October 30, 2009.

EurasiaNet, NY
Jan 7 2010

GEORGIA: ARMENIAN-TURKISH RAPPROCHEMENT COULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT
ECONOMIC IMPACT ON TBILISI
Nino Patsuria 1/07/10

Print this article Email this article

As prospects dim for a quick reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border,
Georgian business executives remain quietly content. Trouble with the
Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process can mean continued economic
benefits for Georgian traders.

Turkey and Armenia signed reconciliation protocols last October that
specified that their mutual border would be reopened to trade upon
ratification by both countries’ parliaments. [For background see the
Eurasia Insight archive]. Strong domestic opposition, however, has
delayed the ratification process, and some experts now question
whether the protocol provisions will ever be implemented. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

For the past 16 years, since Azerbaijan and Turkey closed their
borders with Armenia during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Georgia has
been Armenia’s sole route for exports to both the West and Russia.
Cargo bound for Armenia enters Georgia at the Black Sea ports of Poti
and Batumi and then travels south several hundred kilometers to
Yerevan via road or rail. A shorter overland route from Russia via a
border-crossing point in the Georgian highland region of Upper Larsi
has been closed since 2006. In December, Georgian and Russian
officials agreed to reopen the Upper Larsi crossing, pending the
resolution of technical details. Georgian diplomats hinted that the
transit route could be operating again in March.

The reopening of the Armenia-Turkey border could diminish Georgia’s
status as a transit hub. A spokesperson for the Association of
Armenian Freight Forwarders, Diana Sarkisian, indicated that the
Turkish Black Sea port of Trabzon or the Mediterranean Sea port of
Mersin are more attractive shipping points for Armenian
exporter/importers because of significantly lower transit fees and
costs.

Data from the Georgian Ministry of Economic Development shows that
Armenia-bound cargo accounted for 13 percent of Georgia’s overall
transit traffic for the first nine months of 2009. The ministry could
not, however, put a monetary figure on the value of that traffic.
Georgian regulations exempt transit traffic from taxes and fees;
economic benefits come via related jobs and demand for improved
infrastructure, claimed Maumuka Vatsadze, head of the ministry’s
Transportation Department.

Gia Tsipuria, general secretary of the Georgian International Road
Carriers Association, estimated that cargo traffic bound for Armenia
might drop by 40 percent if the Turkish-Armenian border reopened.

But Georgia plays a greater role than just a transit corridor. Despite
the 1993 Turkish embargo on trade with Armenia, Turkish products
abound in Armenian stores. The key to their access lies in Georgia,
where Armenian entrepreneurs regularly register trading companies that
import goods from Turkey and then re-export them to Armenia, Georgian
shipping company executives say.

The Georgian Ministry of Economic Development’s Vatsadze acknowledged
that the practice exists. Turkey, Vatsadze said, chooses to turn a
blind eye to the practice. The Georgian government, in turn, maintains
that it cannot restrict transit via Georgia to other countries.

Giorgi Tsomaia, general director of CaucasTrans Expeditor, a private
shipping company, agreed. "Business is business," commented Tsomaia,
whose firm once handled an Armenian order for Turkish tractors. "It
always finds routes and ways to contact people who need a product."

No data exists about the extent of re-exports to Armenia since Turkish
products bound for Armenia name Georgia as their final official
destination.

This Georgian competitive advantage of sorts would lose its value if
the Turkish-Armenian border reopens. But some in Georgia are banking
on Georgia’s railway system to make up the difference. One senior
executive at Georgian Railway Ltd, the state company that runs
Georgia’s railway network, believes that the system could help Georgia
fend off Turkish competition over trade routes.

Like Georgia, Armenia uses Soviet-style railroad tracks that would
require trains to adjust wheels when moving between Turkey and Armenia
— a factor that would add cost and time to trade, noted Georgian
Railways Freight Transportation Director Davit Jinjolia.

"Turkey has an underdeveloped railway infrastructure. Its key transit
tool is road transportation, which is twice as expensive as the
railway. . . . [This factor makes] railway transportation cheaper and
more convenient between Georgia and Armenia," Jinjolia said. "No
direct railway connection exists between Trabzon and Yerevan."

A representative of the Turkish Embassy in Tbilisi did not respond to
a request for information about railway or port tariffs in time for
publication.

If the Turkish border re-opens, Jinjolia predicted a drop of no more
than 2 percent in Georgia’s Armenia-bound railway cargo traffic.

Sarkisian, the Association of Armenian Freight Forwarders
spokesperson, also indicated that exporters would not be inclined to
make any drastic changes, given that Turkish railway tariffs make this
option not attractive for Armenia.

"Of course, the situation may change if the Turkish Railways changes
its tariff policy," she added. She also downplayed the difficulty
posed by different rail gauges in Armenia and Turkey. A depot in the
western Armenian town of Akhuryan is capable of expediting wheel
alignments for rolling stock, she asserted.

Editor’s Note: Nino Patsuria is a freelance reporter based in Tbilisi.

The International News, Pakistan
Jan 7 2010

Keeping Turkey out of Europe is subtle prejudice

Thursday, January 07, 2010
By David Cronin

Istanbul is haunted by a unique type of melancholy, Orhan Pamuk writes
in his wondrous book on Turkey’s largest city. Known as hüzün, `the
black mood shared by millions of people together’ is particularly
dense on cold winter mornings `when the sun suddenly falls on the
Bosphorus and the faint vapour almost rises from the surface’.

Many Turks must be overcome by a comparable weariness (this one not
mitigated by beautiful scenery) when they hear of their country’s
never-ending quest for membership of the European Union. More than 22
years after Turkey first applied to join, the prospect of its EU entry
seems as remote as ever, even if formal accession talks began in 2005.

With progress in those negotiations already sluggish, primarily
because of unresolved questions over the future of Cyprus, there is
now a new hurdle to be overcome. Bulgaria has indicated it will block
Turkey’s membership unless compensation is paid for the expulsion of
Thracians by Ottoman forces in the early 20th century.

It is only right that Turkey should be required to improve its human
rights record in order to join the union. The aforementioned Pamuk is
among those to have fallen victim to its restrictions on free speech;
the Nobel laureate was prosecuted over a 2005 interview in which he
discussed the genocide perpetrated by Ottoman forces against 1.5m
Armenians nine decades earlier.

While charges against him were eventually erased on a technicality and
while important gestures of friendship towards Armenia have been made
by the present Turkish leadership, the Ankara authorities continue to
muffle voices of dissent. This has been illustrated by a ruling from
the Turkish constitutional court last month, banning the Kurdish
Democratic Society party.

Such curbs on expression, however, have nothing to do with the
antipathy directed at Turkey by Nicolas Sarkozy in France and Angela
Merkel in Germany. Rather, their opposition to Turkey’s bid for EU
membership is explained by what a columnist in the Turkish newspaper
Hürriyet accurately described as `basic facts not pronounced openly’
on Monday. `Turkey is a Muslim country,’ Mehmet Ali Birand wrote. `And
Europe is not ready yet to accept a Muslim country in the EU.’

This anti-Turkish bias is tantamount to racism. Even though the EU
institutions officially claim to cherish diversity, there is a tacit
agreement among some of their most powerful leaders that the union
must remain predominantly Christian. Herman Van Rompuy, the EU’s new
president, is one of the few to have voiced this desire in a public
forum (and that was long before his recent elevation in status). `The
universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also
fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of
a large Islamic country such as Turkey,’ he told a meeting at the
Belgian parliament in 2004.

As a Christian myself (albeit not a devout one), I am not sure what
teachings of the poor Nazarene that Van Rompuy professes to follow
provide a justification for slamming the door on adherents to another
faith.

If a golf club adopted a similar policy of exclusion, there is a
strong likelihood it would be sued for breaching equality laws. The EU
is nominally a club of democracies; why is it allowed to discriminate
on religious grounds?

sp?id=217303

news.az, Azerbaijan
Jan 6 2010

Interests of many countries interlaced in Karabakh conflict
Wed 06 January 2010 | 13:47 GMT Text size:

Vafa Guluzade "Turkey is willing to settle the Karabakh conflict.

It is interested in this issue more than others, but not everything
depends on this country. Certainly, Erdogan will touch upon this issue
during talks with Putin and Medvedev but I do not think it will
promote the soonest resolution of the Karabakh conflict", said
political scientist Vafa Guluzade commenting on the upcoming visit of
Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan to Moscow.

According to the political scientist, the Karabakh conflict is one of
the most complicated conflicts in the world as the interests of very
many countries are interlaced in it.

"The United States are also viewing this conflict as a way and lever
of their influence on the region. Thus, if even Moscow can be
persuaded, we should also persuade Washington. This is such a
complicated knot of differences and interests that I am more
pessimistic in this issue. Both Moscow and Washington have occupied a
zero-risk position and insist that the parties should agree and they
will support any agreement. But everyone knows that they are cunning.
Armenia is not an independent state and, if these superpowers order
so, it will agree on any solution. But they will not do so. The world
superpowers benefit from protracting the conflict", he said.

1 news.az

news.az, Azerbaijan
Jan 5 2010

Kazakhstan to play more active role in Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement
Tue 05 January 2010 | 12:41 GMT Text size:

Kazakhstan will play more active role in settling the
Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh conflict during the OSCE
chairmanship in 2010.

Official Astana will place special emphasis on soonest solution to
conflicts and other problems in the South Caucasus including energy
and transit-related issues.
Kazakhstan repeatedly demonstrated its support for settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh dispute in the frame of Azerbaijan`s territorial
integrity.

At a conference on perspectives and challenges of Kazakhstan`s 2010
OSCE Chairmanship held recently in Astana, Armenia`s occupation policy
against Azerbaijan was unanimously condemned.
Actions to be taken this year regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
and other disputes will be discussed at a meeting of the OSCE
Permanent Council on January 14 in Vienna.

Kazakh foreign minister and secretary of state Kanat Saudabayev said
his country would make every effort to contribute to strengthening
security and cooperation `from Vancouver to the Far East’.

Kazakhstan took over the OSCE chairmanship from Greece on January 1.

AzerTAj

news.az, Azerbaijan
Jan 5 2010

Family of captive Azerbaijani resident concerned over absence of news
Tue 05 January 2010 | 06:41 GMT Text size:

There is no any official information about Eldar Tagiyev, a resident
of the Tovuz region held in Armenian captivity.

The family of the captive is waiting impatiently for the news about
him. According to Eldar’s wife Svetlana, the family intends to apply
to the International Committee of the Red Cross. According to
Tagiyeva, no one has ever taken interest in them.

"We want to know whether he is alive or dead".

Resident of the Alibeyli village of Tovuz region was shot on the
Armenian border and then taken captive by Armenian servicemen at about
18.00 on December 28.

ANS PRESS

Interfax, Russia
Dec 30 2009

Remarks by Azeri ambassador to Russia instigate use of force in
setting Karabakh conflict – CSTO

MOSCOW Jan 30

Azeri Ambassador to Russia Polad Bulbuloglu’s statement that the Azeri
diaspora abroad should join the effort to liberate the occupied lands
is in fact instigating a military resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh
problem, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)
Secretariat said in a statement on Wednesday.

"The ambassador’s remarks can be interpreted as disbelief in political
and diplomatic settlement methods and instigating a military
resolution of the problem. It is especially strange to hear from a
prominent artistic figure, a man of art, whose ideals should be
harmony and peace," it said.

The ambassador’s words "contain an unambiguous call for the use of
force, which does not help find constructive solutions to the Nagorno-
Karabakh conflict," the CSTO Secretariat said.

"It appears that this policy would lead to more tensions in the
situation in the region and runs counter to the efforts being made by
the OSCE Minsk Group and the context of negotiations between the
presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan," it said.

The OSCE, "as well as other international institutions, has repeatedly
declared its commitment to a peaceful settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and is continuing to support efforts being
made within the OSCE framework to accomplish its political
resolution," it said.

Azerbaijan’s ambassador to Russia Polad Bulbuloglu earlier said in an
interview with the ANS television channel that the Azeri diaspora
abroad must join the country’s citizens in freeing the occupied lands.

"The time has come to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Every
Azerbaijani must participate in the liberation of the lands," the
ambassador said. "If someone is going to stay at home while the army
is fighting for the occupied lands – it is not the way it should be.
The whole country, the whole public, the whole nation must stand up
and, united as a fist, support its president and liberate the lands.
There can be no other way," he said.

BAKO SAHAKIAN RECEIVES MESROP MASHTOTS EXPEDITION HEAD ZORI BALAYAN

NOYAN TAPAN
DECEMBER 28, 2009
STEPANAKERT

STEPANAKERT, DECEMBER 28, NOYAN TAPAN. On December 27, NKR President
Bako Sahakian received head of Mesrop Mashtots expedition Zori Balayan
and Armenia sailer’s crew and congratulated them on the occasion of
the successful end of navigation’s first stage.

According to NKR President’s Press Office, B. Sahakian said that the
initiative carried out by the expedition is of special significance
for the whole Armenian people and is one more evidence of Armenian’s
belief, bravery, will and unity.

JOSEF GINGOLD TURNS 100
Isidor Saslav

Swans.com
Dec 28 2009

(Swans – December 28, 2009) Well, he would have turned 100 if he had
still been alive. But no, Josef Gingold, one of the most celebrated
teachers of the violin of the 20th century, had died in 1995 at the age
of 86 after a lifetime of artistic achievement and the nurturing of
great string-playing talent. Filled with deep appreciation thousands
of attenders, including Mrs. Saslav and the author, became part of
the audience at two concerts held in his memory, the first in the
Main Auditorium on the campus of Indiana University in Bloomington on
November 1, 2009. The next night, in downtown Indianapolis’ Historical
Society, a second and different concert was given, which we also
attended, this one sponsored by the International Violin Competition
of Indianapolis (IVCI), a competition that Gingold himself had helped
to found in 1982.

In fact, when one of the organizers conferred with Gingold about
the parameters of the proposed competition he mentioned the prizes
planned to be given, including prestigious tours and appearances
and a first prize of $25,000. Gingold, at that time 73, blinked
and humorously replied, "I’ll start practicing myself!" Today Jaime
Laredo, Gingold’s one-time student, has taken over the directorship
of that competition, which his erstwhile teacher had helped to found
and which he had entreated Laredo to take over.

Gingold can be counted as one of three celebrated American teachers
of the violin who held the spotlight for most of the previous century.

The Armenian-Parisian-American Ivan Galamian (1903-1981) had as two
of his most outstanding prodigies Michael Rabin and Itzhak Perlman;
while his one-time associate, the Kansan Dorothy DeLay (1917-2002)
could count among her stable Midori and Sarah Chang. But the
Polish-American Gingold (1909-1995) needed to take second place to
no one, having produced such celebrated artists as Jaime Laredo and
Joshua Bell as well as numerous subsequent concertmasters of leading
American orchestras.

In the midst of the two concerts described above, screenings were
exhibited onstage of films documenting the life of the esteemed
maestro, showing him arriving liner-borne in the United States as a
boy and not long after, at age 18, residing in the country of Belgium.

He had gone there to continue his studies with one of the most
respected violinists and musicians of the age, Eugene Ysaye. When
Gingold arrived back in the U.S. three years later he brought with
him one of the greatest of 20th-century compositions soon to enter
every concert violinist’s repertoire and of which he was to give the
North American premiere in New York, Ysaye’s Ballade, Op. 27, No. 3,
for unaccompanied violin. The Ballade was one of six sonatas for
unaccompanied violin that Ysaye had modeled formally after the famous
J.S. Bach solo sonatas for the same instrument. Ysaye had written these
sonatas in the 1920s shortly before Gingold arrived. Evidently highly
impressed by his young student’s talents and capabilities Ysaye gave
to Gingold the responsibility of giving the actual world premiere of
the Ballade right there in Belgium.

Jacques Israelovitch, former concertmaster of the Toronto Symphony,
and, like me, also a former Gingold student, told us the story of this
momentous premiere, as recounted to him by Gingold personally. The
premiere was to take place at a banquet. And while the diners,
including Ysaye himself, were busy enjoying themselves gastronomically,
there was Gingold practicing away in the kitchen in preparation for
the big event. Suddenly there came a moment when Gingold realized
that he had forgotten how the work, then so new and unfamiliar,
began. Quietly and carefully Gingold sneaked his way unobtrusively
among the diners to where Ysaye himself was seated and explained his
dilemma. Ysaye first laughed but then a quizzical look came over his
face and he said, "You know, I’ve forgotten it myself!"

One of Gingold’s concert events in Belgium was his performance
of Beethoven’s Violin Concerto in Waterloo. Many decades later he
was invited to perform the same concerto in the other Waterloo, the
one in Iowa. Gingold said to me, during the days I studied with him,
1961-64, "I’m probably the only violinist in the world who has played
the Beethoven Violin Concerto in both Waterloos."

Ysaye dedicated each sonata to a different celebrated violinist
colleague: Szigeti, Kreisler, Enesco, etc. The Ballade was dedicated
to Georges Enesco (1881-1955), like Ysaye himself not only a violinist
but a composer as well. In the late 1940s in New York Enesco was still
giving concerts and master classes. About to participate in one of
these master classes was the soon-to-be-celebrated young violinist
Sidney Harth, later concertmaster of the Chicago and other prestigious
American orchestras. According to the story he told us, Harth, then
a student in New York, decided to perform Ysaye’s Ballade for Enesco
inasmuch as the work had been dedicated to that very master class
maestro. Enesco queried Harth, "What are you going to perform for me?"

"Ysaye’s Ballade, Maestro." "Show me that music," demanded Enesco.

Enesco then proceeded to study the work very carefully for what seemed
to Harth a long while. Finally Enesco handed the music back to Harth,
looked up, and declared, "I hate this piece!"

The fates of Josef Gingold and Indiana University had become entwined
in 1959 when the noted musical empire builder, the late Dean Wilfred
C. Bain, just recently arrived from the University of North Texas
where he had accomplished a similar departmental buildup, had lured
Gingold from his highly prestigious concertmastership of the Cleveland
Orchestra under George Szell to join the faculty of illustrious stars
Bain was just in the process of building in Bloomington. Already part
of the brilliant array were pianist Menahem Pressler, by then famous
as the founder of the Beaux Arts Trio; and cellist Janos Starker,
who, besides his world-wide concertizing and recording, had been the
principal cellist of the Dallas and Chicago Symphonies. Many another
star was to join the ranks over the decades on other instruments as
well: Philip Farkas on horn, James Pellerite on flute, Ted Baskin
on oboe, Leonard Sharrow on bassoon, etc. When Dean Charles Webb
succeeded Bain he carried on the traditions that made the (now
"Jacobs") School of Music at Indiana University the largest, (1500
students) and considered by many to be the finest university-based
music school in the U.S., perhaps the world, highlighted especially by
its long-renowned opera program ("A performance every Saturday night"
was its slogan when I served as the opera orchestra’s concertmaster in
1961. Now several more nights of the week have also been added.) and
its eight student orchestras. (There were only four when I was there.)

Today the pattern of a star-filled faculty is being continued under
the leadership of the present dean, Gwyn Richards, with such luminaries
as Jaime Laredo, Joshua Bell, Mark Kaplan, and Jorja Flezanis forming
the spine of the violin faculty. (Many further prominent names could
of course be added, such as violinist Henryk Kowalski and conductors
Arthur Fagen and David Effron.)

After Gingold’s auspicious New York debut in 1930, he settled in
around town as a prominent freelancer and chamber musician. But
when the legendary Arturo Toscanini was offered by NBC his own
studio-based orchestra, soon to become famous over nationwide radio,
and led by the "concertmaster of the century," Mischa Mischakoff,
Gingold gladly accepted his invitation to join it. After some years
in the NBC Symphony Gingold was offered the concertmastership of the
Detroit Symphony under Karl Kruger, who had succeeded the late Ossip
Gabrilowitsch, the orchestra’s founder and only conductor up to his
death in 1938. Gingold spent but a few seasons in Detroit before
he was drafted by the Prague-American maestro George Szell to lead
Szell’s Cleveland Orchestra as concertmaster and help to turn his
new orchestra into a world class ensemble with its own characteristic
middle-European sheen and perfection of execution. In between symphony
seasons Gingold would perform at various western music festivals
including many years of collaboration with pianist Ralph Berkowitz
in Albuquerque NM’s annual chamber music events.

But while in Detroit Gingold was able to exercise his
later-to-become-legendary expertise as a teacher and developer of
string talent. A young violin prodigy was brought to him and Gingold
became his teacher for about six months. But at the end of that time
Gingold went to the young boy’s parents and said, "Your child has
extraordinary talent and he must be sent to a famous teacher and
a famous school where they can develop his talent to the full. I
recommend Efrem Zimbalist and the Curtis Institute in Philadelphia."

So the young boy left for Curtis at age 13 in 1945 and eventually
became the prizewinner, concertmaster, chamber musician, and conductor
whom we know so well, Joseph Silverstein.

This procedure was paralleled in later years when another talented
young teenager came to Gingold from San Francisco. This time Gingold
spent two years with the young lad before also sending him on to
where his talent could be most effectively developed. Thus did the
young Jaime Laredo become a student of Ivan Galamian, likewise at
the Curtis Institute, there to be prepared to eventually win the most
prestigious violin prize in the world, The Queen Elizabeth of Belgium
Prize, in 1959 at age 18, a prize established by the queen in honor
of Gingold’s one-time teacher, Ysaye.

Galamian, when he established his world-renowned violin camp,
Meadowmount, in the 1940s, could think of no one better to lead his
chamber music department than Gingold; and Gingold served there in
that capacity for decades. When Gingold arranged for me to attend
Meadowmount in 1962 he indeed became my string quartet coach for that
summer. Gingold astounded many by his ability to sing everyone’s part
by memory in the quartets he coached.

But besides Gingold’s expertise in chamber music his wealth of
experience in the orchestra repertoire earned him the gratitude
of aspiring orchestra violinists everywhere thanks to his 3-volume
collection of orchestral excerpts. This rich and detailed compendium,
filled with Gingold’s own fingerings and bowings, has formed down
through the years a most treasured item of assistance in the knapsack
of many an ambitious audition taker.

But as to his own teaching again, in his later years in Bloomington
Gingold was once more approached by the parents of a great violin
talent. This time the young performer didn’t have to travel from
anywhere to take his lessons with Gingold because his family lived
right there in Bloomington. And this time Gingold felt no need to
send his so-promising pupil anywhere else because he himself took
over the full training of the young Joshua Bell and developed him
into the prize-winning celebrity he was soon to become.

(Speaking of Bell’s prizes, when he was 13 Bell won the nationwide
prize given by the American String Teachers’ Association. I attended
not long ago an annual ASTA convention in Albuquerque, where Bell was
invited to perform a recital with pianist Jeremy Denk. Bell had just
turned 40 and explained to the audience before the concert began
that the last time he had performed for them was when he had won
their prize 27 years before. It was nice to be invited back after
all those years. Did I detect a note of sardonic irony in Bell’s
statement about his long-delayed re-invitation?)

It was Bell, along with Laredo, and other former Gingold students
like Andres Cardenes and Miriam Fried, who, during the two memorial
concerts recently, filled the Bloomington and Indianapolis stages
not only with their brilliant and affective performances but with
their spoken reminiscences of Gingold and how he had invited them so
warmly into his world and made them feel so welcome and appreciated
and thus furthered their development both as human beings as well
as performers. This was indeed my own experience of the man and his
humanity and he served for me the same much-needed service in my own
development as I’m sure he did for many of his other former students,
many of whom were, no doubt, part of the audience as were we.

To my mind a notable absentee at all these proceedings was the
brilliant Canadian violinist, pianist, mathematician, and one-time
Gingold student Cory Cerovsek. Cerovsek became at 12 years of age the
youngest student in the history of Indiana University’s music school
in Bloomington. There he studied with Gingold in his mid-teens and
graduated from Indiana University in both music and mathematics at
the age of 17. Cerovsek, now at age 37, is in the midst of a highly
successful touring and recording musical career. Gingold counted
him as one of his favorite students and they even made a Canadian
documentary film together about Cory’s studies with him. I was highly
surprised not to see him among the performers or attenders.

Besides his encouragement and support, Gingold became the matchmaker
to me and my wife of now 47 years, pianist Ann Heiligman, by putting
us together as a collaborating pair in his studio. And not only that,
he sent us off by playing at our wedding and convinced two other of
our teachers, his colleagues Pressler and Starker, to join him! (We’ve
been told that never before or since had this particular group of
three stars performed publicly together as a chamber music ensemble
except on this very special occasion.)

So, Joe, wherever you may be on your hundredth anniversary, keep
developing the violin talent of any angels you may find. They don’t
have to stick to just harps.