Author: nina hovnanian

US AMBASSADOR SUSPECTED VARTAN OSKANIAN OF WORKING POLITICALLY WITH KOCHARIAN

epress.am
09.05.2011 13:11

At a Nov. 14, 2008 meeting with then US Ambassador to Armenia Marie
L. Yovanovitch, former foreign minister Vartan Oskanian criticized the
downward trends in democracy and human rights, according to a Nov. 18,
2008 confidential cable written by Yovanovitch and recently published
by WikiLeaks.

Yovanovitch notes that Oskaninan “observed that former President
[Robert] Kocharian ‘did the same thing,’ but that the situation
is worse now. Oskanian said he did not know whether Sargsyan would
cobble together a political solution to resolve the issue of the Mar. 1
detainees, such as an amnesty. He noted, however, that he was familiar
with Sargsyan’s thinking in Mar. when they were in meetings together,
and at that time, Sargsyan wanted ‘to do something about this’.”

According to Oskanian, Kocharian is interested in entering politics
and working towards the 2012 parliamentary elections “at which time
he might start his own party,” but the timing of his political debut
depends on developments in Armenia, and “if there is an opening,
he will seize it”:

“He is talking to party leaders and others and says there is interest
in working with him. Oskanian refuted the rumors circulating that
former President Kocharian wants to stage a political comeback in the
near future and that Oskanian is helping him. He said that he can’t
imagine Kocharian as Prime Minister, since he would then be number
two. He added Kocharian is doing a lot of traveling abroad now,
and has not mentioned any such plans.”

Yovanovitch notes that Oskanian offered the “rare view in Armenia that
Armenia’s economic development depends on democratic improvements,
including an independent and professional court system, freedom of
speech, and freedom of the press.” He noted that without improving
good governance and raising the human capacity in Armenia, the country
will never be able to really progress.

In her concluding comments, Yovanovitch notes that the US embassy
suspects rumors of Oskanian working politically with Kocharian to
be true:

“Notwithstanding Oskanian’s rebuttal, the Armenian political
class remains convinced that Oskanian is working politically with
Kocharian, and we strongly suspect that to be correct. Oskanian is a
brilliant, experienced, and wily diplomat, and probably not above a
bit of dissimulation in the service of his goals. On Turkey and NK,
his public and private comments over recent months have often been
quite skeptical and had a tinge of sour grapes. There may well be an
element of professional jealousy and resentment that after Oskanian’s
long years of hard work (representing the uncompromising President
Kocharian), his successor, Nalbandian, may get to be the one in the
Foreign Minister’s seat at the moment of breakthroughs on Turkey and NK
[Nagorno-Karabakh].”

DID SERZH SARGSYAN ASK FOR U.S. SUPPORT?
Naira Hayrumyan

Lragir.am News

12:16:04 – 05/09/2011

In Armenia, they prefer ignoring Wikileaks. Armenian officials
say they don’t take Wikileaks seriously, it reports non-official
information, and so it makes no sense to react. At the same time,
they do not deny the information the website leaks, which creates
quite an interesting picture.

The second large portion of documents relating to Armenia is extremely
personalized. If previously the cables were in general terms, now it
reports the complete anatomy of the situation in Armenia. In addition,
in the Wikileaks leakages, one can figure out the most painful points.

First of all, the relations of Armenia with Russia and the U.S. some
documents state (none has been denied) that Serzh Sargsyan’s
confidante, the Armenian businessman Mikhail Bagdasarov, told the U.S.

Ambassador Yovanovitch that Russia backs Turkey regarding the
Armenian-Turkish issues. Most experts noted that the Armenian and
Turkish reconciliation at the expense of Karabakh is a Russian project,
but on the official level nobody announced that Russia supports
Turkey. On the contrary, a number of overtures were made to Russia,
and the term of deployment of the Russian military bases in Armenia
was extended. But it turns out that the Armenian elite were aware,
and in order to thwart this project, they called on the U.S. to
support President Sargsyan.

An outrageous fact has been reported: the house of the Ukrainian
ambassador was assaulted after the Ambassador turned down the request
of the Armenian authorities to cancel celebration of Holodomir on
the same day of Medvedev’s arrival in Yerevan on his first state visit.

The MFA called the Ambassador and asked to cancel the celebrations. He
refused after which unknown people assaulted his house, damaging his
property but stealing nothing.

The next portion of cables is on the relationships between Serzh
Sargsyan and Robert Kocharyan. The U.S. embassy staff believes
Kocharyan could “quickly step into the breach” at any moment. But his
influence on Sargsyan never withered. Moreover, Sargsyan’s son-in-law
and assistant Mikael Minasyan, even secretly met with a member of the
U.S. Embassy in 2008 and asked to support Sargsyan. “Kocharyan is a
“strong” president, he is still working, and Sargsyan’s influence on
him is limited,” said Minasyan. Post-election arrests and intimidation
have also been ascribed to Kocharyan.

The third portion is oligarchs. The same Mikayel Minasyan told an
Embassy officer that Serzh Sargsyan would like to get rid of the
oligarchs. He wants to owe to the young generation and not old robbers,
said Minasyan. In this, he asked the U.S. to help Sargsyan.

Apparently, Sargsyan got the U.S. support. An Embassy member admits
that they ignore information on election bribes and intimidation and
would like to work with Sargsyan.

3.5 years have already passed. Apparently, Sargsyan has not fulfilled
his commitments to distance from Russia and fight oligarchs headed
by Kocharyan. The introduction of all these documents to public
discussion indicates that time is up and it is time to choose where
to go next. Either Sargsyan begins to fulfill his commitments and the
U.S. supports him, or more such documents will be issued, which will
highlight the illegitimacy of the elections and Sargsyan’s presidency.

The first was the sensational leakage on the talk of the member of
the Constitutional Court, Valeri Poghosyan, who admitted he had been
pressured. This happened when Levon Ter-Petrosyan applied to the CC
to declare the elections invalid. According to Poghosyan, pressure
was exerted on the other three members to. And if it suddenly becomes
known that the Constitutional Court took this decision under pressure,
Serzh Sargsyan’s legitimacy will be questioned.

FOR WHOM MARGAR “TOLLS”
Hakob Badalyan

Lragir.am News

11:37:34 – 05/09/2011

The arrest of the Chief of Traffic Police, Margar Ohanyan, is presented
as evidence to ongoing reforms in the police. Haylur, the news program
on the public channel, televised Serzh Sargsyan’s meeting with the
Police staff a few months ago where he declared stronger commitment
to Police reforms.

In reality, the presentation of Margar Ohanyan’s arrest as evidence to
Police reforms is not convincing. It could be presented as evidence
to fight on corruption, though it would not be convincing either but
would at least sound more conceptual.

The point is that if Serzh Sargsyan is really committed to police
reforms, the scandalous reshuffle should have taken place a few
months ago. The point is not the necessity to arrest not only Ohanyan
but other high-ranking officials. Though, perhaps, in case of an
indiscriminate attitude to everyone in the system, it would be hard
to imagine that the most corrupt is Ohanyan, while the others commit
less abuse.

If the point is real police reforms, then it is of no importance
whether other members of police leadership commit any crime or abuse.

They must be sacked regardless of all because under their leadership,
the style of work of the police shows that these people are far from
modern thinking and it is impossible to build a modern police, one
that inspires sense of safety in citizens with them at the wheel.

For instance, if the Chief of Police states that the society deserves
the police it has, then he has to immediately resign because a Police
Chief with such thinking is unable to fulfill immediate and fast
reforms in the system. Certainly, Alik Sargsyan must not be alone to
do so. His deputies and all the other high ranking police officials
must be sacked too.

The leadership and staff of the police must resign. Without surgery,
it will be impossible to carry out reforms and acquire a favorable
image in a short term.

With all this absent, the description of Margar Ohanyan’s arrest as
evidence to police reforms means lack of awareness of public moods,
perceptions and existing problems, or a presumption that the society
lacks this understanding. Meanwhile the society does understand
everything. Moreover, now it understands everything even better
than before.

ARMENIAN COMMUNITY TO TAKE PART IN CUISINE FESTIVAL IN BURYATIA

Tert.am
10:56 05.09.11

A republican festival of traditional cuisines, “Living cultural
ties between peoples of Buryatia”, is to be held at the Transbaikal
ethnographic museum in Ulan-Ude, Buryatia, Russia, on the margins of
the Baikal international tourist forum, September 9.

“Such festivals are most popular throughout the world for a number of
reasons. The major reason is that all those wishing can get acquainted
with traditional cuisines and culture of peoples living together,”
said Sergey Vasilyev, an official of the Consumer Market and Licensing
Service, Republic of Buryatia.

National cultural centers of Tajiks, Uzbeks, Tatars, Armenians,
Germans, Azerbaijanis, Jews and other peoples will participate in
the festival.

The participants will hold expositions of their national cuisines,
and national song and dance companies will give concerts.

UNE SOCIETE AUSTRALIENNE INVESTIT DANS L’ELEVAGE DE MOUTONS EN ARMENIE
[email protected]

armenews.com
lundi 5 septembre 2011
ARMENIE

Une societe australienne va lancer un programme d’investissement pour
la creation de fermes d’elevage de moutons en Armenie, a declare
Robert Harutyunyan directeur general de l’Agence Armenienne de
developpement(ADA).

A la fin de l’annee 2010 l’ADA avait annonce son intension d’etablir
de grandes fermes d’elevage de moutons en Armenie pour 5000 moutons.

Le Programme d’investissement sera developpe en cooperation avec les
administrations regionales et des terres pour la construction des
fermes seront definis.

“D’ici un mois la compagnie australienne va introduire un plan pour
une ferme d’elevage de moutons. Je pense que d’ici l’automne, nous
pourrons en discuter avec nos regions pour la definition des terrains
pour les fermes ” a-t-il dit.

L’objectif principal de l’ADA est la suppression des anciennes
normes sovietiques et l’etablissement de nouvelles fermes d’elevage
de moutons en conformite avec les normes internationales.

Actuellement il existe 3 a 4 investisseurs potentiels issus des
pays arabes et de la CEIet qui sont prets a mettre en ~uvre de tels
projets en Armenie.

LE TRAITE DE MOSCOU ET LA TRAHISON DE LA TURQUIE
[email protected]

armenews.com
lundi 5 septembre 2011

Les Turcs arrivèrent d’Asie centrale entre les 11ème et 12èmesiècles.

Ils formaient deux familles dont l’une s’appelait ” Ak Koyunlular ”
(mouton blanc) et l’autre ” Kara Koyunlular ” (mouton noir). Guerriers
et conquerants, ils menaient des batailles contre les populations
locales pour occuper de nouveaux territoires. L’apogee des Turcs se
situa durant la periode ottomane, lorsque l’empire d’une superficie
de plus 21 millions de km² s’etendait sur trois continents. Les
destructions, enlèvements et massacres etaient si courants qu’en
1829, Victor Hugo, dans son poème ” L’Enfant ” extrait des Orientales
ecrivait ” Les Turcs ont passe la. Tout est ruine et deuil “.

Après 700 ans d’existence, l’Empire Ottoman se desagregeait au
20ème siècle. Le sultan turc Abdul Hamid appele aussi le ” sultan
rouge ” avait massacre et deporte des Armeniens, des Grecs et des
Assyro-Chaldeens. Le sultan fut chasse par le mouvement jeune-turc
dirige par Enver pacha. Plus tard, l’organisation appelee ” Ittihad ve
terrakki cemiyeti ” (societe union et progrès) d’ideologie bourgeoise
prit les renes du pouvoir. En octobre 1917, la revolution instaura le
pouvoir bolchevik en Russie. La region du Caucase etait consideree par
la Russie comme un point strategique pour la securite du pays. Vers la
fin de 1920, les trois Republiques du Caucase, La Georgie, l’Armenie
et l’Azerbaïdjan s’integrèrent dans l’URSS.

En 1921, les autorites russes invitèrent a Moscou les representants
des pays du Caucase et ceux de la Turquie pour regler des problèmes
litigieux. A cette epoque, les Turcs avaient accepte de ceder a
l’Armenie les 3 vilayets de Kars, Ardahan et Artivin. Cependant,
les Armeniens reclamaient egalement les vilayets de Van et Erzeroum.

Parallèlement, un putsch antisovietique renversait le gouvernement
d’Armenie Sovietique et retirait toute legitimite a la delegation
presente a Moscou. En consequence, la reunion de Moscou se deroula
sans les representants armeniens.

Au lendemain de la 1ère guerre mondiale, les pays vainqueurs (en
particulier la France et le Royaume-Uni) occupaient l’Anatolie. Cet
etat de fait ne plaisait guère a la Russie sovietique pas plus qu’aux
nationalistes Mustapha Kemal, Ismet Inonu et Kâzim Karabekir qui
entamaient une lutte armee pour chasser les forces d’occupation du
pays. Le 18 mars 1921, la Russie signait avec les autorites turques un
traite qui confirmait la reconnaissance de ses frontières et l’amitie
entre les deux peuples. D’ailleurs, malgre les difficultes inherentes
au blocus impose par les occidentaux a la Russie sovietique, cette
dernière consentait a apporter une aide materielle et financière aux
Turcs qui luttaient pour la liberation de leur pays.

Les communistes turcs se trouvaient aussi parmi les forces de
liberation du pays. Cependant, les chefs des combattants nationalistes
pour la creation d’une Republique turque auraient conclu un accord
secret avec le Royaume-Uni ce qu’ignorait la Russie sovietique et
les communistes turcs.

Fin 1921, a Trebizonde, 15 membres eminents du parti communiste
turc dont le premier secretaire Mustapha Suphi furent embarques sur
des bateaux, egorges et jetes dans la mer noire. Cet acte barbare
fut attribue aux milieux de la bourgeoisie du pays. En definitive,
l’elimination des tetes pensantes du parti communiste turc n’etait-elle
pas un affront lance a la Russie sovietique après avoir accepte son
aide pour mener a bien l’independance de la Turquie ?

Le 29 octobre 1923, la Republique turque fut fondee sous la presidence
de Mustapha Kemal ” Ataturk ” et deux ans plus tard, le 17 decembre
1925, l’URSS signait un pacte d’amitie et de non agression avec
la Turquie.

Le 1erseptembre 1939, l’Allemagne nazie attaquait la Pologne, marquant
ainsi le debut de la seconde guerre mondiale.

Le 5 mai 1941, les autorites turques appelaient sous les drapeaux 20
classes d’hommes de 25 a 45 ans parmi la population non-musulmane du
pays. Le marechal Fevzi Cakmak n’accepta pas d’enrôler ces mobilises si
on ne leur donnait pas des uniformes. En realite, le plan des autorites
turques n’avait pour but que d’isoler les familles non-musulmanes
pour mieux les maîtriser car les non-musulmans etaient consideres
par les Turcs comme une cinquième colonne dans le pays.

Le 18 juin 1941, la Turquie, consideree comme un pays ” neutre
“, signait un accord a Berlin avec les nazis, scellant l’amitie
ancestrale avec l’Allemagne. Pendant la seconde guerre mondiale,
la Turquie joua la carte de la ” neutralite “. Elle etait d’une part
l’alliee du Royaume-Uni et de l’autre elle continuait a entretenir des
rapports d’amitie avec l’Allemagne. La Turquie livra a l’Allemagne
des tonnes de denrees alimentaires (viandes, poissons et cereales)
ainsi que du manganèse et du chrome necessaires a l’industrie de
guerre nazie. Cette situation provoqua une penurie dans le pays et
l’obligation de mettre en place des tickets de rationnement.

Après l’agression de l’URSS par l’armee hitlerienne, le 22 juin
1941, la Turquie avait aligne 26 divisions militaires a la frontière
sovietique en particulier a celle de l’Armenie Sovietique. L’attaque
de l’armee turque sur l’URSS etait conditionnee a la chute de
Stalingrad. La defaite subie par l’armee hitlerienne devant Stalingrad
ne donna pas l’occasion a l’armee turque d’attaquer l’URSS.

L’activite febrile de Von Papen, l’ambassadeur d’Allemagne a Ankara
avait irrite les autorites sovietiques. Une tentative d’assassinat
menee par Pavlov et Kornilov contre le diplomate echoua. La police
turque arreta ces deux suspects qui furent gardes en detention avant
d’etre liberes a la fin de la guerre.

Septembre 1942, la Turquie imposa une loi pour ecraser financièrement
les non-musulmans habitant dans le pays. En cas de non recouvrement
des sommes imposees, les biens de ces contribuables etaient saisis
et les citoyens arretes et deportes au fin fond de l’Anatolie a Askale.

De 10 a 12000 personnes furent ainsi envoyees dans les camps et
beaucoup d’entre eux y perirent.

Le 19 mars 1945, Moscou denoncait le pacte de non-agression et de
neutralite conclu a Ankara.

Debut 1945, la Turquie sentant proche la defaite de l’armee nazie
declara la guerre a l’Allemagne.

L’Allemagne capitulait les 8 et 9 mai 1945.

26 juin 1945, lors de la conference de San Francisco, l’Organisation
des Nations Unies fut creee.

Le ministre des affaires etrangères de l’URSS, Molotov avait deja
presente deux requetes a la Turquie, l’une concernant le rattachement
a l’Armenie Sovietique des vilayets de Kars et d’Ardahan et l’autre
a propos de l’internationalisation des detroits du Bosphore et des
Dardanelles qui permettrait d’assurer une libre circulation des
navires de toute nationalite. La Turquie refusa ces demandes.

A la fin de la seconde guerre mondiale, les pays du monde se
groupèrent en trois fractions : les pays occidentaux sous l’egide des
Etats-Unis, les pays dits socialistes appeles ” democraties populaires
” sous l’influence de l’URSS et les pays non-alignes. Une quantite
non negligeable de personnes ayant collabore pendant la seconde
guerre mondiale avec les nazis se refugia en Amerique latine et aux
Etats-Unis. Les pays dits ” neutres ” comme la Turquie avaient choisi
de se mettre sous la protection des Etats-Unis. La Turquie s’arrogea
le droit d’occuper des places dans les institutions internationales.

Depuis sa creation en 1923, ce pays etait dirige par un parti
unique denomme CHP (parti du peuple de la Republique). Sous couvert
de democratie, le pouvoir turc autorisait la creation de plusieurs
partis politiques dans le pays. Cette mesure permettait a la Turquie
de beneficier de l’aide du plan Marshall. La Turquie pour s’assurer
un parapluie militaire adhera en 1951 a l’OTAN.

PERIODE DE LA GUERRE FROIDE

En novembre 1961, les Etats-Unis installaient des missiles Jupiter
en Turquie braques vers l’URSS. En reponse a cette menace, le 13
septembre 1962, l’URSS installait des missiles a Cuba orientes vers
les Etats-Unis.

Le 14 octobre 1962, un avion espion americain de type U2 pilote par
Anderson fut intercepte par des missiles au-dessus du territoire
sovietique, le pilote fut fait prisonnier. Les Etats-Unis auraient
prefere que leur pilote soit mort plutôt que prisonnier entre les
mains des sovietiques.

Plusieurs tentatives de debarquements americains sur Cuba echouèrent.

Le monde etait-il au bord d’une troisième guerre mondiale ?

Heureusement la raison des chefs d’etat des pays belligerants l’a
emporte.

Le 28 octobre 1962, l’URSS demantela ses missiles de Cuba et en avril
1963, les Etats-Unis faisaient de meme avec leurs missiles Jupiter de
Turquie. *** Arrives d’Asie centrale, les Turcs se sont metamorphoses
au fil des siècles ; passant du nomadisme au sedentarisme conquerant,
ils ecrasèrent une multitude de pays en assimilant diverses ethnies
et constituèrent un etat imperial. Après la dislocation de l’Empire
ottoman, Mustapha Kemal ” Ataturk ” mena une guerre contre les pays
occidentaux qui occupaient l’Anatolie comme nous l’avons ecrit au
debut de notre recit. Dans les livres d’histoire de la Turquie,
il n’y aucune mention concernant l’aide octroyee par la Russie
sovietique aux forces de Mustapha Kemal ” Ataturk “. Les autorites
turques grâce aux subtilites acquises depuis des siècles dans le
domaine de la diplomatie avaient trompe la Russie sovietique.

Recip Tayyip Erdogan, lors de sa visite a Moscou les 15 et 16 mars
2011, remit a Dimitri Medvedev la photographie du traite signe il y a
90 ans entre l’URSS et les autorites turques. Après la signature le 18
mars 1921 du traite de Moscou, la politique menee par les differents
gouvernements de la Turquie vis-a-vis de l’URSS ne constituait-elle pas
une trahison envers le peuple russe. L’avenir ne nous devoilerait-il
pas encore d’autres faits inattendus qui se trouvent caches dans les
archives des institutions internationales ?

Paris août 2011

Nersès Durman-Arabyan

Vic Darchinyan beats Evans Mbamba in Yerevan (video)
10:10 – 04.09.11

Armenian flyweight boxer Vic Darchinyan beat Evans Mbamba from South
Africa in a first-ever professional boxing in Karen Demirchyan Sports
Complex in Yerevan late on Saturday.

Though initially Darchinyan had promised his fans he would beat his
rival with a knock-out, Mbamba was a strong boxer and survived till
the last round.

Before the fighting Darchinyan said he dedicated his victory to the
20th anniversary of Armenia’s independence.

`I have a lot of titles, but my goal is to win a fight in Armenia,’
had had said prior to the fighting.

Darchinyan, asking permission from international referees, gave his
world champion’s belt to Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan.

Another prize he had earned for the best knock-out of the year in
2008, Darchinyan gave to Gagik Tsarukyan – the President of the
National Olympic Committee of Armenia.

Mbamba said before the fighting he had trained for eight weeks, to
which Darchinyan responded, saying he had trained for 16 weeks.

Tert.am

IsraCast, Israel
Sept 4 2011

Turkey’s True Colors?

Sunday, September 04, 2011

Turkey Expels Israeli Ambassador, Severs Military Ties & Warns Of
Further Sanctions Although Palmer Report Rules That Israel’s Naval
Blockade Of Gaza Is Legal Under International Law

Israeli Cabinet Split Over Whether Israel Should Have Apologized To
Turkey Over Deaths of Nine Turks Killed While attacking Israeli
Commandos

IsraCast Assessment: Turkey’s Islamist Regime Appears Bent On
Restoring Influence Of Despotic Ottoman Empire After Being Rejected By
European Union

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and his Islamist regime is not taking
No for an answer – the Turks have rejected the Palmer Report’s finding
that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is legal. Ankara is now planning
to go to the International Court of Justice in the Hague to contest
the inquiry into the operation by Israeli naval commandos to prevent
the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara and other ships from breaking Israel’s
legal blockade.Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has also
declared that Israel will pay by losing Turkey’s friendship as well as
suffering Turkish sanctions. Analyst David Essing is of the view the
Mavi Marmara, like pirate ships of the past, sailed under false colors
to Gaza and the affair has now revealed where Turkey is now headed.

Israel is now bearing the brunt of Turkey’s fury over being rejected
by the European Union after European leaders finally awakened to the
Islamist threat inside their borders. In response, Turkey’s Islamist
regime is now bent on augmenting its power and prestige within the
region. Israel is its scapegoat. It began with Erdogan’s unbridled
verbal attack on Israel’s President Shimon Peres after the IDF was
sent into Gaza to suppress the relentless Palestinian rocketing of
Israeli civilians in 2008. At their face-to-face showdown in Davos,
Peres retorted: ‘What would you do if your civilians were being
rocketed day and night?’ Well just ask the Kurds whose villages are
being bombed indiscriminately by Turkish fighter jets. Or just ask the
Greek Cypriots who were brutally expelled from their homes in northern
Cyprus by an invasion of the Turkish army in 1974.

As for the Palmer report, it should not have come as a surprise that
it ruled Israel’s blockade of Gaza is legal under international law:
‘Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in
Gaza- the naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure
in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its
implementation complied with the requirements of international law’.
Under these circumstances, the Turkish flotilla attempt to run the
blockade was found to be ‘reckless’. And in this vein: ‘There exist
serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the
flotilla organizers particularly IHH (The Turkish aid organization
that is known to support terror groups). In Jerusalem, this part of
the report came as no surprise. Not only Israeli experts but also
prominent international jurists had stated categorically there was no
question about the legality of the blockade in light of the
Palestinian rocketing from Gaza. It is being viewed as a diplomatic
vindication of Israel despite some headlines in the international
media such as the BBC for example: ‘Palmer Report Condemns Israel’s
Excessive Use of Force!’ The Palmer Report did refer to ‘Forensic
evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times,
including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately
accounted for in the material presented by Israel’. The inquiry
recommended that Israel make ‘an appropriate statement of regret and
pay compensation’, there was no mention of an official apology as
demanded by Ankara.

But it would appear that after exonerating Israel on the legality of
Israel’s naval blockade, the Palmer Report had to even the score. The
inquiry found that the Israeli commandos who descended by ropes from a
helicopter on to the deck of the Mavi Marmara faced significant,
organized and violent resistance that included knives, iron bars,
staves and chains and possibly firearms. Two IDF soldiers suffered
gunshot wounds, seven others were wounded by passengers, some
seriously. Three of the soldiers were overpowered as they descended
from the first helicopter and forced down below the deck of the
Marmara. This was documented by the Palmer report that went on to draw
a questionable conclusion from the mayhem that took place on the
Marmara, after some of the peace activists resisted what amounted to a
legal Israeli operation to board the vessel. The inquiry concluded:
‘Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot
multiple times, including in the back, or at close range range, has
not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by
Israel’. Therefore, the report found that Israel had used ‘excessive
and unreasonable force’.

Consider this: the IDF soldiers who first slid down the ‘fast ropes’
were armed with paint guns that were considered sufficient to deter
‘peace activists’, but when they landed on deck they had to fight for
their lives using live ammunition. Take for example the fact that the
Palmer report said two of the soldiers suffered from gunshot wounds
while several others had been stabbed. If they had actually been
killed would this have persuaded the Palmer investigators that the
Israeli troops had been in a life threatening situation? Or the fact,
that three had been dragged prisoner below deck and had to be rescued
by their comrades, who serious would that be in the eyes of the
security experts. Moreover, video tape reveals there was a bloody,
hand-to-hand battle being waged on deck with some of the activists
indeed being shot at close range. If the Israelis were trigger happy
would they have waited to get within dangerous close range. This also
also explains how in such a donnybrook some of the activists were shot
in the back or suffered multiple wounds. And if the commandos had come
with automatic guns blazing away from the outset is it reasonable to
assume that three of their number would have been kidnapped and only
nine activists killed? And it should be noted that on the other ships
in the flotilla where the activists did not resist there were no
casualties at all.

The fact is that the Turkish government did nothing to prevent the
Turkish vessel from illegally trying to break the legitimate blockade
but then demands that Israel apologize. Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu has expressed ‘regret’ and agreed to pay compensation as
recommended by the Palmer Report. But the PM and Foreign Minister
Avigdor Lieberaman and Cabinet Minister Moshe Yaalon, who tried to
negotiate a solution with the Turks, have all said the government
would not apologize for IDF soldiers defending themselves while
carrying out a lawful act. However, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and
Cabinet Minister Dan Meridor contended that Israel should swallow her
pride and make the apology, in order to try and salvage her important
ties with Turkey. In light of developments, it appears that Islamist
Turkey, a key ally of Syria until the recent upheaval, and still a
firm friend of Iran has taken a strategic decision to turn a hostile
shoulder to the Jewish state. Step by step, the Islamist regime is
taking off the gloves and Israel must take this into her strategic
planning. The outlook is bleak if Erdogan seeks a return to the
‘glory’ of the Ottoman Empire.

At this stage, the Turkish PM and his officials, are posing as the new
moralists of the Middle East, while adamantly refusing to acknowledge
Turkey’s genocide of the Armenians in 1917. Israeli governments
persistently refused to call upon Ankara to acknowledge their
responsibility in order not to impair relations with Turkey. This is
particularly galling today in light of Turkey’s decision to make
Israel her scapegoat in order to enhance her image in the Muslim
world.

The Armenian Genocide

The Armenian genocide refers to the deliberate and systematic
destruction (genocide) of the Armenian population of the Ottoman
Empire during and just after World War I. It was implemented through
wholesale massacres and deportations, with the deportations consisting
of forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of
the deportees. The total number of resulting Armenian deaths is
generally held to have been between one and one and a half million.

The atrocities committed against the Armenian people of the Ottoman
Empire during W.W.I. are called the Armenian Genocide. Genocide is the
organized killing of a people for the express purpose of putting an
end to their collective existence. Because of its scope, genocide
requires central planning and a machinery to implement it. This makes
genocide the quintessential state crime, as only a government has the
resources to carry out such a scheme of destruction. The Armenian
Genocide was centrally planned and administered by the Turkish
government against the entire Armenian population of the Ottoman
Empire. It was carried out during W.W.I. between the years 1915 and
1918.

The Armenian people was subjected to deportation, expropriation,
abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation. The great bulk of the
Armenian population was forcibly removed from Armenia and Anatolia to
Syria, where the vast majority was sent into the desert to die of
thirst and hunger. Large numbers of Armenians were methodically
massacred throughout the Ottoman Empire. Women and children were
abducted and horribly abused. The entire wealth of the Armenian people
was expropriated. After only a little more than a year of calm at the
end of W.W.I., the atrocities were renewed between 1920 and 1923, and
the remaining Armenians were subjected to further massacres and
expulsions. In 1915, thirty-three years before THE UN Genocide
Convention was adopted, the Armenian Genocide was condemned by the
international community as a crime against humanity.

How many people died in the Armenian Genocide?

It is estimated that one and a half million Armenians perished
between 1915 and 1923. There were an estimated two million Armenians
living in the Ottoman Empire on the eve of W.W.I. Well over a million
were deported in 1915. Hundreds of thousands were butchered outright.
Many others died of starvation, exhaustion, and epidemics which
ravaged the concentration camps. Among the Armenians living along the
periphery of the Ottoman Empire many at first escaped the fate of
their countrymen in the central provinces of Turkey. Tens of thousands
in the east fled to the Russian border to lead a precarious existence
as refugees. The majority of the Armenians in Constantinople, the
capital city, were spared deportation.

In 1918, however, the Young Turk regime took the war into the
Caucasus, where approximately 1,800,000 Armenians lived under Russian
dominion. Ottoman forces advancing through East Armenia and Azerbaijan
here too engaged in systematic massacres. The expulsions and massacres
carried by the Nationalist Turks between 1920 and 1922 added tens of
thousands of more victims. By 1923 the entire landmass of Asia Minor
and historic West Armenia had been expunged of its Armenian
population. The destruction of the Armenian communities in this part
of the world was total.

Who was responsible for the Armenian Genocide?
The decision to carry out a genocide against the Armenian people was
made by the political party in power in the Ottoman Empire. This was
the Committee of Union and Progress , popularly known as the Young
Turks. Three figures from the CUP controlled the government; Mehmet
Talaat, Minister of the Interior in 1915 and Grand Vizier (Prime
Minister) in 1917; Ismail Enver, Minister of War; Ahmed Jemal,
Minister of the Marine and Military Governor of Syria. This Young Turk
triumvirate relied on other members of the CUP appointed to high
government posts and assigned to military commands to carry out the
Armenian Genocide. In addition to the Ministry of War and the Ministry
of the Interior, the Young Turks also relied on a newly-created secret
outfit which they manned with convicts and irregular troops, called
the Special Organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa). Its primary function
was the carrying out of the mass slaughter of the deported Armenians.
In charge of the Special Organization was Behaeddin Shakir, a medical
doctor. Moreover, ideologists such as Zia Gokalp propagandized through
the media on behalf of the CUP by promoting Pan-Turanism, the creation
of a new empire stretching from Anatolia into Central Asia whose
population would be exclusively Turkic. These concepts justified and
popularized the secret CUP plans to liquidate the Armenians of the
Ottoman Empire.

The Young Turk conspirators, other leading figures of the wartime
Ottoman government, members of the CUP Central Committee, and many
provincial administrators responsible for atrocities against the
Armenians were indicted for their crimes at the end of the war. The
main culprits evaded justice by fleeing the country. Even so, they
were tried in absentia and found guilty of capital crimes. The
massacres, expulsions, and further mistreatment of the Armenians
between 1920 and 1923 were carried by the Turkish Nationalists, who
represented a new political movement opposed to the Young Turks, but
who shared a common ideology of ethnic exclusivity.

David Essing

‘S-TRUE-COLORS

The National
August 14, 2011 Sunday

Interview with author Elif Shafak

As The Forty Rules of Love goes to paperback, the author talks about
the power of fiction.

Elif Shafak is explaining the genesis of her latest novel, The Forty
Rules of Love. As with so much that can be said about her literary
career – now encompassing 10 books, and vast success in her native
Turkey – the story winds its way back to one of her favourite topics,
the poet Rumi.

“With The Forty Rules of Love, I wanted to write a love story,” says
Shafak. “But I wanted a love story with a spiritual dimension.

“For me, that took me to Rumi. And from Rumi, I went to Shams of
Tabriz. That’s how the story took shape.”

Shams was the 13th-century Persian Sufi scholar now remembered for the
transformative role he played in Rumi’s life. Forty Rules delves into
his encounter with Rumi in the Anatolian city of Konya in 1244, the
deep, transcendental friendship that ensued and the lasting effect on
Rumi, who was inspired by the wisdom of Shams – and eventual
separation from him – to write his masterpiece, The Masnavi. All this
comes, though, via another narrative: that of Ella, a contemporary,
dissatisfied housewife in New England who takes a part-time job as a
reader for a small publishing company. The first manuscript that Ella
is given tells the story – which we read along with her – of Shams and
Rumi, and soon she finds herself engaged in a heartfelt email
correspondence with the author. The novel progresses via short
chapters that jump between the 21st and 13th centuries.

Upon hardback publication last year, Forty Rules catapulted the
39-year-old Shafak to international recognition and 550,000 copies
sold. Now Shafak is easily the best-known contemporary Turkish
novelist, after the all-conquering Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk. She
seems tireless: a columnist for Turkish newspapers, including Zaman,
she contributes to The Economist and The New York Times, speaks
regularly at conferences and literary festivals, and has published 10
books in 12 years.

“I respect people who say that they write because they have a personal
story to share with the world,” says Shafak. “But that was never my
starting point: I’m not interested in my own story, I’m interested in
not being myself. When writing a novel I can be anyone, I can go to
any place, any time: that is mesmerising to me.”

Shafak’s fiction has always been informed by weighty concerns, but
that hasn’t prevented long-standing mainstream success in Turkey, now
spreading – via Forty Rules – to Europe and the US. Still, her
literary career has not been one of unimpeded ascent. In 2006 in
Turkey, she was charged with “insulting Turkishness” under article 301
of the Turkish Penal Code, when a character in her 2006 novel The
Bastard of Istanbul referred to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
Armenians in 1915 as a “genocide”. A panel of judges quickly acquitted
Shafak; she would have faced a jail sentence of up to three years if
found guilty.

“Turkey is such a complex country; it defies generalisations,” she
said. “But I can say that our society today is so young and
future-orientated and open to change. There is an on-going debate
about Turkish identities, and the nature of our civil society.”

As you’d expect, though, Shafak resists the idea – often foisted on
her – that her work is representative of Turkey in any straightforward
way.

“There is this pressure to somehow be a spokesperson, to be
representative. I feel it constantly,” says Shafak. “It’s particularly
acute if you are from a non-western country, and you’re a woman. Some
critics in the West expect that if you’re a woman from a Muslim
country, then you should write stories about Muslim women; of course,
by that they mean some kinds of stories, about some kinds of Muslim
women. It bothers me that we have come to ascribe this function to
fiction, so that we want to be able to say it is representative of a
certain group of people. That is the opposite of what fiction is
about, which is the transcending of identity in that limited way. It’s
about feeling, not identity.”

Given the current state of the book industry, that is an apposite
position. Over the past two decades, literary fiction in the UK and US
has been dominated by fashionable “multicultural writing” that
pretends to help us understand other cultures, but that at its worst
only helps to reinforce old preconceptions. When people say, for
example, that Turkey is the “gateway between East and West”, isn’t
there usually implied in that an entire, essentially inaccurate
conception of what is “Eastern”?

“Unfortunately, there are a lot of sweeping generalisations produced
on many sides,” says Shafak. “There is a cliched view in the West that
Muslim societies are behind the times, static and unchanging, and that
Muslim and western societies are mutually incompatible. None of this
is true. Muslim societies are evolving constantly, just as are other
societies.

“Some people in the West wanted to say that people in the Middle East
had no democratic impulse, that they weren’t ready for freedom and
human rights. Well, the Arab Spring has profoundly challenged all
those cliches.”

But if bad fiction is so often part of the problem, Shafak says that
good fiction can be an important part of the answer. It’s via fiction
that we can all, however briefly, transcend ourselves, and connect
with those who are different; just as Ella does in The Forty Rules of
Love.

“Stories can play such an important role. They can bring us into
contact with all sorts of people, both real and imagined. I want a
discourse that is inclusive, that is about bringing people of
different backgrounds together around shared values.

“If we’re going to learn anything in this world, we’re not going to
learn it from people who are exactly the same as us. We’re going to
learn it from people who are different.”

Moj News Agency, Iran
August 27, 2011 Saturday

Iran Improves Armenian Tools Producing Industry

Vahram Tepelikian, the chief manager of Almast plant in Yerevan,
producing synthetic diamond powder, glass and hard metals working
tools, as well as tools for cutting, grinding and polishing stones,
said today the plant has sent a large batch of its products to Iran.

“Iran has become a new and very promising consumer of our products and
exports to this country have significantly increased production
volumes,” he said.
According to him, currently the company is working to develop a number
of investment programs that will help improve product quality and
increase output.
According to the Armenian ministry of economy, with the help of
prosperous Iranian market in the first half of this year, the Almast
plant doubled its output, sales rose by 179.2 percent and exports
increased 12 times.