Author: Takmazian

Armenian National Committee of Canada
Comité National Arménien du Canada
130 Albert St., Suite/Bureau 1007
Ottawa, ON
KIP 5G4
Tel./Tél. (613) 235-2622 Fax/Téléc. (613) 238-2622
E-mail/courriel:national.office@anc-canad a.com

PRESS RELEASE

June 23, 2008
Contact: Roupen Kouyoumjian

ANCC Congratulates First Nations for Government of Canada Apology

Ottawa–The executive director of the Armenian National Committee of
Canada (ANCC) congratulated the First Nations Chief Phil Fontaine on
the Canadian Government’s historic apology for the institionalized
abuse and discrimination in the residential school system. Aris
Babikian of ANCC met Chief Fontaine on June 22 at the Canadian Jewish
Congress’ annual meeting.

Babikian commended Fontaine and his colleagues for their wisdom,
patience and their leadership on achieving the important milestone.

Babikian said to the leader of the First Nations that the Armenian
people, who were victims of genocide nearly a century ago, are still
waiting for acknowledgment from the Turkish government. Babikian said
he highly valued the government of Canada’s statement and that he was
confident such strong ethical and moral pledges would speed up the
reconciliation and healing process between the First Nations and the
rest of Canadians.

Babikian pledged the Canadian-Armenian community’s and the ANCC’s
solidarity for the First Nations and said he looked forward to much
closer cooperation in the future.

During his keynote speech, Chief Fontaine said, `We have achieved the
impossible.’ He said that he considered the apology `so very important
to all Canadians because the residential schools meant the denial of
our existence and the denial of our culture.’ The apology, said the
Chief, would "start a new relationship and new existence for the First
Nations and Canadians . . . The June 11 apology is very much about
hope and reshaping Canada so everyone can be treated fairly. But most
important it’s about reconciliation. Reconciliation is about learning
to live together and to heal.’

Chief Fontaine reviewed the history of the mistreatment of the First
Nations in Canada and what the aboriginal people have achieved
lately. He said he was cognizant of the challenges the First Nations
are facing, specially in education, health care and housing. He
appealed for the support of `all right people’ to overcome these
challenges.

********

The ANCC is the largest and the most influential Canadian-Armenian
grassroots political organization. Working in coordination with a
network of offices, chapters, and supporters throughout Canada and
affiliated organizations around the world, the ANCC actively advances
the concerns of the Canadian-Armenian community on a broad range of
issues.

Regional Chapters/Sections régionales

Montréal – Laval – Ottawa – Toronto – Hamilton – Cambridge –
St. Catharines – Windsor – Vancouver

OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS VISITED KHANKANDI
Tamara Grigoryeva

APA
29 Jun 2008

On June 28, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs, Ambassadors Yuri
Merzlyakov (Russia), Matthew Bryza (US) and Bernard Fassier (France)
left Yerevan for Khankandi to discuss Madrid proposals with the
self-proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh republic leadership. OSCE CiO’s
Personal Representative, Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk also attended
the meetings. The mediators returned to Yerevan afterwards.

Further consultations will be held in Moscow and Vienna where the
mediators will brief on the outcomes of their visit to the region.

THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN AN ILLEGAL DECISION
GEVORG HAROUTYUNYAN

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on June 28, 2008
Armenia

Interview with GRIGOR AMALYAN, Head of the National Committee on
Television and Radio

`Mr. Amalyan, are there any justifications to the claims that `A1+’ has
won the case and proved its righteousness in the European Court of
Human Rights?’

`First of all, it is necessary to find out why `Meltex’ company lodged
an appeal with the European Court, and what decisions the latter made
and only then estimate which party won the case. And there are really
victories and hence ` occasions for congratulating the winner

It was many years ago that I insisted, in one of the interviews to
`Hayots Ashkharh’, that the party most interested in the outcome of the
case was the Republic of Armenia and particularly, our committee. Now,
the European Court provided a final and clear-cut answer to all the
questions which had been a subject of inappropriate speculations for
many years on end.

In clause 6 of the case, `Meltex’ LLC gave an overall picture of the
pressures and harassments used against it in 1994-1995. The European
Court did not make any decision in this regard; however, it formed a
general idea about our country. In particular, the court substantiated
the fact that `A1+’ was deprived of a license with political
considerations in 1995, prior to the presidential elections.

`Meltex’ attributed its defeat in 2002 and failures in the subsequent
contests to this story. There were two claimants: `Meltex’ LLC and
Mesrop Movsisyan. Under clause 68, the European Court established that
the latter could not be considered an aggrieved party in the frameworks
of this particular case.

It was alleged in the claim that there were violations under Articles
10 (freedom of speech), 6 (fair trial) and 14 (non-discrimination
clause) of the European Convention. As a result of relevant studies,
the European Court clearly concluded and stated in its decision that
there were no violations of procedural rights. I believe this will put
an end to the libels and speculations addressed to our country’s
judicial system for so many years. This is really a victory, and I
congratulate both `Meltex’ and the whole Armenian people on this
occasion.

There were also discussions on political discriminations against `A1+’,
and this also served as a factor for compromising the Republic of
Armenia. In clause 97 of its decision, the European Court underlined
that it hadn’t displayed a discriminatory attitude to `Meltex’. In this
way, the `tool’ used many times in the past with the purpose of
inciting a clash was actually eliminated. I express my congratulations
on this victory too.

It was mentioned in the claim that our committee worked illegally, not
recognizing `Meltex’ a winner as a result of the contest. Whereas, in
clause 82 of its decision, the European Court definitely stated that
our committee worked in compliance with the existing laws of that
period. Our committee is an executive body, and it’s not entitled to
editing the laws or applying them at its own will under any
circumstances. If this is what `Meltex’ considers to be its victory, I
express my greetings both to the company and our committee. I also hope
that there will no longer be any libels addressed to our committee or
our country. For us, this decision of the European Court is the same as
the 1953 Universal Acquittal Act for an individual convicted in 1937
under the charges of being the `enemy of the people’.

According to `Meltex’, we violated Article 10 (the right to freedom of
speech) of the Convention, not recognizing the company as a winner in
the 2002 contest and failing to substantiate our decision. However,
there was no such requirement contained in Article 57 which was in
effect at the time, and naturally, we acted within the law.
Nevertheless, the European Court added that this might restrict the
claimant’s right to freedom of speech, and it envisaged compensation in
the amount of 20 thousand Euros for `Meltex’ LLC in addition to a sum
of 10 thousand Euros for covering the defense costs.

Here, too, the winner is the Republic of Armenia, since under the
amendment introduced into the law in 2003, it is necessary to
substantiate the decisions of the committee. Whereas `Meltex’ applied
to the European Court in 2004 when our National Assembly had already
bridged the existing legislative gap without an extra mediation,
coercion or proposal.’

`Mr. Amalyan, what goal did `Meltex’ pursue, and what did it achieve?
How do you estimate the outcome of the court procedures?’

`In the appeal lodged with the European Court of Human Rights, `Meltex’
LLC claimed material damage in the amount of 357 thousand 828 US
Dollars. The structural components of the `damage’ were the unpaid
incomes, compensations for contractual terminations and the loss of the
unused equipment. In its decision, the European Court directly labeled
the formulation of the unpaid incomes and missed chances as a
speculative claim. As to the other two formulations, they were
considered unfounded. That’s to say, the claim was an attempt of
receiving (if not extorting) a very large from the Republic of Armenia
through a speculation.

There was also a claim for the compensation of the non-material damage
which, according to the estimations of `Meltex’, made up 50 thousand US
Dollars. However, there was no documentary evidence, and some costs
were unnecessary. Therefore, the European Court satisfied the claim in
the amount of 10-20 thousand Euros.’

`Mr. Amalyan, Mesrop Movsisyan claims that under the decision of the
European Court, `A1+’ company should be given airtime without delay.
Does this imply a new contest or are you going to give them airtime on
a new frequency?’

`I consider that the decision on withdrawing a license from a TV
company before the expiry date and granting it to another company is
strange. `A1+’ fully exercised its competences with respect to the
frequency; all the rights of the company were exhausted upon the expiry
of the terms of the license.

The Council of Europe could not have made an illegal decision and
demanded that `A1+’ be given airtime immediately. It is impossible to
violate the Constitution, the right to a free competition and a number
of laws just in order to give airtime to someone. PACE Resolution #
1620 calls on the licensing body to take into consideration the
decision of the European Court and ensure an open, free and transparent
contest.

STILL OFF THE AIR

Transitions Online
June 27 2008
Czech Republic

An Armenian broadcaster wins an important case in the European Court
of Human Rights. But the fight may not be over.

If you’re the big man in charge and you don’t like what the media are
reporting, just shut them down. That’s what Russia’s government did
earlier this month with the irreverent, somewhat smutty, but ever
intrepid Exile biweekly in Moscow. That’s what Mikheil Saakashvili
did in Georgia last November, sending riot police into the pesky
Imedi television station to force it off the air during a period of
sustained political protest.

In Armenia, President Robert Kocharian temporarily barred all but
"official" media from reporting on post-election demonstrations in
March. After watching security forces fire on demonstrators in central
Yerevan, many journalists took the cue and complied with the gag order.

It was by no means the first time that the Armenian authorities used
their power to restrain the country’s marginally free media. Take
the case of A1 Plus, the nation’s first independent broadcaster. A1
Plus developed a reputation as a reliable and – by the standards of
Armenia’s highly partisan journalism – relatively neutral source of
news when it went on the air in the early 1990s.

Mesrop Movsesian, who runs A1 Plus, opened his own journalism training
center to improve the standards of his own reporters, photojournalists
and technicians, as well as those outside the station. "They were
doing what we wished we could do, and still wish we could do," says
one prominent journalist for the government-run TV network.

But A1 Plus’s aggressive reporting was not popular in the corridors
of power. During the convulsive 1995 presidential election season,
the broadcaster opened its airwaves to all candidates, rather than
bending to political pressure to only broadcast what the government
wanted. A1 Plus paid the price for its audacity by temporarily losing
its broadcast license.

In April 2002, the National Television and Radio Commission suddenly
gave the A1 Plus frequency to a company that, according to Movsesian’s
lawyers, had limited experience and no broadcasting equipment. Since
then, the commission has repeatedly denied A1 Plus a broadcasting
license. The NTRC, whose members at the time were appointed by the
president, refused to explain its decisions, and Armenia’s courts
dismissed the broadcaster’s complaints against the commission.

The company and its journalists have survived through its Internet
site, despite lost advertising revenues and a significantly smaller
Internet audience. Years after the station went off the air, loyal
listeners still turn out on occasion to protest the government’s
treatment of A1 Plus and to demand that it be given a broadcast
frequency.

JUSTICE AT LAST

The broadcaster finally got justice this month when the European Court
of Human Rights ruled that the Armenian government had violated A1
Plus’s rights under the freedom of expression clause of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The court also ordered the government to
pay the broadcaster 30,000 euros in damages and legal costs.

"I am happy that we have won," A1 Plus lawyer Tigran Ter-Yesayan
said on 17 June, the day the court decision was announced. "The A1
Plus staff knew that their rights had been violated but the problem
could have been solved in the local court. I am sorry to have involved
the European Court in this matter. Being in the judicial process the
company lost much. So did the society, as getting information is one
of its rights."

Armenia is hardly the world’s most brazen offender of free
expression. In fact, by the standards of the former Soviet Union, the
media market is relatively vibrant. The Yerevan Press Club lists more
than 60 television companies and even more newspapers in a country
of barely 3 million people.

But many media have limited reach and the advertising market is too
small to sustain that much competition, and news operations are
expensive. The "news" too often constitutes shots of government
ministers cutting ribbons, dreary politicians rattling on with
little context, and reports "sponsored" by businessmen or people with
important connections. Some Armenian journalists readily acknowledge
taking payments to slant their reports, while others complain that
their managers care little about quality and neutrality.

The human-rights court’s decision gives Armenia’s new president,
Serzh Sarkisian, the chance to enable a stronger media environment. He
could start by working with the parliament to build on changes made
last year to the broadcasting law, which divided responsibility for
appointing the broadcasting commission between lawmakers and the
president. As the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
and other watchdogs have noted, the change was a positive step, but
with Armenian politics dominated by the Republican Party, independent
commissions still remain open to undue political influence. Further
revisions, perhaps with members chosen equally by the president,
parliament and media watchdog groups, could reduce partisan influence.

More immediately, the government should rectify the injustice done
to one of the country’s more determined media operations and return
A1 Plus to the airwaves. That would be a victory for free speech. It
would also allow Sarkisian to break with his predecessors’ penchant
for trumpeting democracy to outsiders while placing a lock on pluralism
at home.

ARMENIANS PREFER LIVING IN MOTHERLAND

AZG Armenian Daily
28/06/2008

Social

Only 23 percent of the Armenian population see their future beyond
the borders of Armenia, according to the results of Gallup research
center’s sociological survey, "Azatutyun" radio-station reported.

According to the same survey, 28 percent of the Azerbaijani population
and 26 percent of the Georgian population don’t mind emigrating from
their countries.

Among CIS countries Moldova ranks first with its indexes; 31 percent
of Moldavian population want to leave their country. In Russia that
index is twice low – 17 percent.

Gallup specialists discovered a series of regularities as a result of
the survey. They refute the widespread opinion that the money sent from
abroad to relatives reduces the volumes of immigration. "In reality,
they have become a sort of spur for immigration. People receiving
money from relatives living abroad little-by-little incline to the
view that immigration is the only way to live comfortably", Gallup
experts underline.

ISSUE OF STEPANAKERT’S WATER-SUPPLY IN FOCUS OF NKR LEADERSHIP’S ATTENTION

DeFacto Agency
June 25 2008
Armenia

The issue referring to Stepanakert’s water-supply was discussed on
June 24, in the course of a meeting held by the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic President Bako Sahakian.

According to the Central Department of Information under the NKR
President, Hrayr Tchirakian, a representative of Arj Company, was
also invited to the meeting. He noted that, according to preliminary
agreements, the company would actively participate in improving
Stepanakert’s water-supply.

The head of the state mentioned the necessity of combining efforts
of the state and business considering it an important pledge of the
problem’s solution.

The NKR PM Ara Harutyunian and other officials participated in the
meeting.

JOINT ACTION: IPA AND WIPC CONDEMN CONVICTION OF PUBLISHER OVER BOOK ON ARMENIAN QUESTION

IFEX
t/view/full/94742/
June 25 2008
Canada

Article 301 TPC: International writers and publishers strongly condemn
the sentencing of Publisher Ragip Zarakolu for "insulting the State"

Geneva, London 19 June 2008 – The International Publishers Association
(IPA) and the Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN strongly
condemn the sentencing of publisher Ragip Zarakolu in Istanbul on 17
June 2008 for "insulting the State" (Article 301 TPC) to a five-month
prison sentence, reduced to a fine.

The organisations are especially alarmed that this is the first
conviction since this article was slightly amended on 30 April 2008,
after over 1,000 people, including writers, publishers and journalists,
have been brought to the courts in the three years since its inception
in 2005. IPA and PEN have been calling for the repeal of this law ever
since it was presented in draft form, and are deeply disappointed
that rather than remove this legislation, the amendments are simply
cosmetic.

Around 29 writers and journalists are on trial today under Article
301. They are among a total of 79 charged under a range of laws that
impinge on the right to free speech, including Article 318 that has
led numerous commentators on conscientious objection to the courts,
and a raft of articles under Anti-Terror legislation and against
"incitement" that have been used against writers on the Kurdish
issues. There is clearly much more to do to bring Turkey in line with
its international requirements that safeguard free expression.

Ragip Zarakolu, recipient of the 2008 IPA Freedom to Publish Prize
and an Honorary Member of several PEN Centres worldwide, has said
that he will appeal the sentence and is determined to go as far as
the European Court of Human Rights, if need be. IPA and PEN support
him in demanding that he be acquitted on appeal and urge the Turkish
Judiciary to complete this trial swiftly, efficiently and fairly.

The case leading to the conviction of Ragip Zarakolu was initiated
in December 2004 for the publication of London-based author George
Jerjian’s book, entitled: "The truth will set us free/Armenians
and Turks reconciled". The first hearing of this case took place in
Istanbul on 16 March 2005 and since then there have been more than
ten hearings. Ragip Zarakolu was originally charged under Article 159
TPC, which criminalized acts that "insult or belittle" various state
institutions. This article was abolished in 2005 and replaced with the
now notorious Article 301. In some cases, defendants on trial under
Article 159 benefited from the changes by having their cases closed,
but this was not so for Zarakolu. Instead, he found that his trial
continued under the new law. When Article 301 was slightly amended on
30 April 2008, Zarakolu hoped that this time the case would be dropped,
or at the very least referred to the Ministry of Justice for review
as now provided under the amendments. However, the judge ruled that,
as Zarakolu was tried under the old Penal Code Article 159, the new
amendments do not pertain.

Observers believe that Zarakolu is being singled out by the more
conservative elements of the judiciary because of his decades of
struggle for freedom of expression, and particularly his promotion
of minority rights. Throughout his life, Ragip Zarakolu has been
subjected to a series of long, time-consuming and expensive court
hearings. The conduct of the trial in itself took the form of
harassment and punishment against the defendant for daring to produce
works that touch on sensitive issues, such as the Armenian question,
and Kurdish and minority rights.

The sentencing of Ragip Zarakolu shows that the recent cosmetic
change to Article 301 TPC was not enough to put an end to freedom of
expression trials in Turkey. Turkish legislation (new Article 301,
Law 5816, etc.) must be amended or repealed to meet international
standards, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union.

Ragip Zarakolu will be awarded the 2008 IPA Freedom to
Publish in Amsterdam on 18 September 2008 during the opening
ceremony of the International Seminar on Neo-censorship (18-20
September 2008). This seminar is part of the Amsterdam World Book
Capital 2008 programme. For more about the seminar, please see:
x.cfm?page=agenda&y=2008&m=9&d=18

IPA , established in Paris in 1896, represents the publishing industry
worldwide through 65 national, regional and specialised publishers
associations in 53 countries. International PEN was founded in 1921
in London. It is represented worldwide through 140 centres in over
100 countries. Both organisations are accredited Non-Governmental
Organisations enjoying consultative status to the United Nations
and seek to promote and defend the fundamental freedoms to publish,
to read and to write, defending the rights of authors and publishers
to create and distribute intellectual works in complete freedom.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Send appeals to the Turkish prime minister: – expressing alarm at the
conviction of Ragip Zarakolu on charges that are in direct denial of
his right to freedom of expression – pointing out that Article 301
of the Turkish Penal Code is not compatible with Article 10 of the
European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which protect the right
to free expression and to which Turkey is a signatory – referring to
the existence of numerous other laws in Turkey that are used against
writers and journalists in the legitimate practice of their right
to freedom of expression – calling for there to be a further review
of Turkish legislation to remove from its remit all possibility of
trials and convictions that breach the international standards to
which Turkey is committed

APPEALS TO:

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan Office of the Prime Minister
Basbakanlik 06573 Ankara Turkey Fax: +90 312 417 0476

Please copy appeals to the source if possible, and to the
Turkish ambassador in your own country. To find the address:
y

Updates the Zarakolu case arising from George Jerjian’s book:
37

MENENDEZ SLAMS US POSITION ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Apostolos Zoupaniotis

Monday, June 23 08
greek_news
New York

Senator Robert Menendez sharply criticized the official U.S. position
on the Armenian Genocide, during a confirmation hearing at Senateʼs
Foreign Relations Committee of the Ambassador designate to Armenia
Marie Yovanovitch. Introducing a series of documents and arguments
that proved that what happened in 1915 was indeed Genocide, Senator
Menendez grilled Yovanovitch, whose nomination in uncertain.

Greek News presents the excerpts of the dialogue between Menendez
and Yovanovitch, as they were recorded by the Federal News Service.

SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D-NJ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me
congratulate all the nominees on their nominations and your willingness
to serve. We appreciate that.

Ambassador Yovanovitch, let me start at the outset by acknowledging
and thanking you for your 22 years of very distinguished service to
our country.

I appreciate your service.

In your opening statement, you acknowledge the mass killings, ethnic
cleansing and forced detentions that devastated over 1-1/2 Armenians
at the end of the Ottoman Empire; is that correct?

MR. YOVANOVITCH: Yes, sir, that’s correct. It’s the administration’s
policy to acknowledge these historical facts.

SEN. MENENDEZ: Would you agree with the characterization — and if I
may, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to be referring to a series of documents,
so if I could give the ambassador a copy of them so she could have
them in front of her, that would be helpful. And I’d ask unanimous
consent that these documents be included in the record.

SEN. CARDIN: Without objection, the documents will be included in
the record, and — (inaudible).

SEN. MENENDEZ: I would ask you, would you agree with the
characterization by President Bush on April 24th of 2004, which is
the first referenced item before you, where he says, and I quote:
On this day we pause in remembrance of one of the most horrible
tragedies of the 20th century, the annihilation of as many as 1.5
million Armenians through forced exile and murder at the end of the
Ottoman Empire." Would you agree with that? I just need a yes or no.

MR. YOVANOVITCH: Yes, sir.

SEN. MENENDEZ: Okay. Thank you.

Would you agree that the use of the words "ethnic cleansing," which
you used in your opening statement, would include the deliberate
inflicting on a group of conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part? Would you agree that’s
what generally ethnic cleansing would be defined as?

MR. YOVANOVITCH: There’s no –

SEN. MENENDEZ: Let me read it — say it again to you so you’ve got
it before your answer.

The deliberate inflicting, on a group of individuals, of conditions
of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole
or in part.

MS. YOVANOVITCH: The question that you’re asking, and I hope you
understand my answer, the determination of that is a policy decision
that I’m not authorized to make right now. It’s a decision for the
administration, for the president and the secretary.

SEN. MENENDEZ: I respect your answer. I’m not asking you, what is
the policy or a policy? I’m simply asking, you used the words in
your opening statement — ethnic cleansing. And I’m asking you a
simple question.

Would you describe ethnic cleansing as a deliberate inflicting, on a
group of individuals, of conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction, in whole or in part? And if the answer is
no, then tell me what you mean by ethnic cleansing.

MS. YOVANOVITCH: There is no question that at the end of the Ottoman
Empire, there was mass murder. There was starvation. There were
deliberate rapes.

There was forced exile of one-and-a-half million Armenians at the
end of the Ottoman Empire.

SEN. MENENDEZ: And is that what you describe as your definition of
ethnic cleansing, those facts?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

SEN. MENENDEZ: Would you look at the document that references number
two there, which says — these are documents, that I’m going to be
referring to, by American officials at the time of history.

And I would ask you whether the statement by then-U.S. Ambassador
Morgenthau who wrote, on July 16th, 1915, it appears that a campaign
of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of reprisal
against rebellion.

Is that a fact that you would agree with, as reported, as historical
fact, that Ambassador Morgenthau reported?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. It’s certainly a fact here — I’m reading
off of this handout that you gave me — that Ambassador Morgenthau
reported this.

SEN. MENENDEZ: Thank you.

Would you look at number three, where it says, where U.S. Counsel,
in Aleppo, Jesse Jackson reported to Ambassador Morgenthau on June
5th, 1915, that it is without doubt a carefully planned scheme to
thoroughly extinguish the Armenian race.

Is that what Counsel Jackson said in his statement to Ambassador
Morgenthau?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. According to this document that you’ve given me,
that’s correct.

SEN. MENENDEZ: Number four, where U.S. Counsel, in Harput, Leslie
Davis reported to Ambassador Morgenthau on July 24th, 1915, quote,
"It has been no secret that the plan was to destroy the Armenian
race as a race. But the methods used have been more cold- blooded
and barbarous, if not more effective, than I had first supposed."

Is that the statement issued then by the counsel?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes, as I’m reading this from what you’ve given me.

SEN. MENENDEZ: And finally, on number five, where the U.S. ambassador
to the Ottoman Empire from 1916 to 1917, Abram Elkus, telegraphed the
secretary of State on October 17th, 1960, and said, quote, "In order
to avoid opprobrium of the civilized world, which the continuation of
massacres would arouse, Turkish officials have now adopted and are
executing the unchecked policy of extermination through starvation,
exhaustion and the brutality of treatment hardly surpassed even in
Turkish history." Is that a statement that was issued at that time
by the U.S. ambassador?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes, as I’m reading it here now.

SEN. MENENDEZ: Now, the final reference I want you to look at is
number six.

And would you agree that Article II of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, of which the United States is
a signatory party to and ratified, a copy of which I have before you,
states under Article II, in the present convention, genocide means any
of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy in whole
or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such:
killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions
of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole
or in part? Is that a fair statement of the reading of Article II of
the convention?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes, sir.

SEN. MENENDEZ: Is that a yes?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes, I’m sorry. Yeah.

SEN. MENENDEZ: Yeah, okay.

Therefore — and I — Mr. Chair, if you’ll indulge me — therefore,
would not the facts that you acknowledge — and please listen to my
question — would not — intently — would not the facts that you
acknowledge in your opening statement and those facts that you have
recognized as historical facts during the period of 1915 to 1923 meet
the definition of Article II that you just — I just had you read?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Thank you. It’s certainly true that this is the
definition of genocide here, and I’m familiar enough with the record
to have read some of the accounts from our embassy and our consulate
at the end of the Ottoman Empire which are truly shocking in terms
of scale and the individual stories, as individual families and the
things that happened.

It’s the responsibility and the duty of embassies and consulates
to inform and represent honestly, faithfully, objectively to the
department, to Washington, to the president.

And it is the president, it is the secretary of State that makes
the policy, that makes the determination of how to characterize —
(inaudible).

SEN. MENENDEZ: And I am not asking you for a declaration of policy. I
have not even asked you about a maybe more ultimate question. What I’m
asking you, as a career Foreign Service officer, well-educated, with a
lot of experience — would the facts, as recognized by President Bush
in public statements, as recognized by you in your opening statement
and in terms of the historical documents that I presented to you —
would those facts fall in line — clearly you mentioned the killing
members of a group. You mentioned murder in your opening statement.

MS. YOVANOVITCH: I did.

SEN. MENENDEZ: That’s killing members of a group, is it not?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes, it is.

SEN. MENENDEZ: Would it not be fair to say, in furtherance of some of
the questions I asked you, and I think you very appropriately answered
some of the acts that took place, not only the murders and rapes and
forced deportation of people or forced exile of people, would that not
clearly be causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a group?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes.

SEN. MENENDEZ: And clearly, it would also be deliberately inflicting
on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part. Obviously, those who were murdered in
mass numbers, 1.5 million, obviously those who were exiled, obviously
those who, through other actions, were taken place — that would fall
into that category, would it not?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: It’s a policy decision, sir.

SEN. MENENDEZ: I want to thank you for your honest answers.

Mr. Chairman, if I may — I appreciate your indulgence. I will
have a series of other questions for the record. I don’t want to
delay. But what’s going on here — it is a shame that career Foreign
Service officers have to be brought before the committee and find
difficulty in acknowledging historical facts and find difficulty
in acknowledging the realities of what has been internationally
recognized, Mr. Chairman. Not because I say it; I don’t hold myself
out to be that type of a scholar.

But the fact is that the International Association of Genocide
Scholars, the preeminent authority on genocide, has unanimously —
not equivocated — unanimously declared the Armenian Genocide a
genocide. And it is amazing to me that we can talk about millions,
you know, a million and a half human beings who were slaughtered.

We can talk about those who were raped. We can talk about those who
were forcibly pushed out of their country. And we can have presidential
acknowledgements of that. But then we cannot call it what it is.

It is a ridiculous dance that the administration is doing over the
use of the term "genocide." It is an attempt to suggest that we don’t
want to strain our relationships with Turkey.

But I have to say the fact that we are sending off our diplomats
in such a manner; that they are not able to recognize a historical
event that is clearly documented by credible, objective historians,
an event that is so tragic, an event that the recognition of which is
personal for millions of Armenians and descendants of Armenians, many
of whom are Americans, is also something that I think is detrimental
to our foreign policy.

Mr. Chairman, we have actually had the U.S. ambassador to —
former U.S.

ambassador to Armenia attend every year in April the commemoration of
the Armenian genocide. It is amazing that we send a U.S. ambassador
to the commemoration of an Armenian genocide — which I would hope
that if your nomination is ultimately approved by the Senate, that
you would commit yourself to attending — and yet we cannot — how do
you go and go to a commemoration of the Armenian genocide and never,
ever use the recognition of that fact?

I believe acknowledging historical facts as they are is a principle
that is easily understood both at home and abroad. So while the
administration believes that this posture benefits us vis-a-vis our
relationship with Turkey, I think they should also recognize that
it hurts our relationship elsewhere, and it tarnishes the United
States’ history of being a place where truth is spoken to power. And
acknowledgement of our failures in the past make us stronger, not
weaker, and recognizing the evils of the past do not trap us, but
they set us free.

That is what I hope we can be able to achieve, Mr. Chairman.

I have great admiration for Ambassador Yovanovitch. She is the designee
here, and having to respond to questions. And as I told her privately,
I would be pursuing the line of questioning. I appreciate her intent
to be as frank and open as possible. And Mr. Chairman, if you have
a second round, I have a different set of questions for one of the
other candidates.

SEN. MENENDEZ: Ambassador. Would you, if you were to be confirmed by
the Senate, make a commitment to this committee that you would attend
the Armenian genocide commemoration, which is held every April 24th,
as Yerevan, as previous ambassadors have?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: If I were confirmed, I would certainly commit to
attend to Armenian Remembrance Day.

–Boundary_(ID_5LhCxm8Rt5faOmELkYLlrA)–

Cherry Hill Courier Post, NJ
June 22 2008

Caring priority for genocide survivor

By WILFORD S. SHAMLIN ¢ Courier-Post Staff ¢ June 22, 2008

An unlikely chain of events helped Dorothy Baldadian and most of her
family escape the genocide of an estimated one million Turkish
Armenians early in the 20th century.

More amazing than her story of survival itself is her recounting of
the experience. Laura Chudd, a long-time friend who heard Baldadian
speak about the horrors she witnessed, remembers her addressing a
volunteer-recognition luncheon ceremony more than a decade ago.

"She told it without bitterness," said Chudd, of Haddon
Township. "That was her life and she accepted it. She could tell that
story, which was horrible, just factually, without hate."

Baldadian, among the last survivors of the Armenian genocide by the
Turkish Ottoman Empire, died May 4 in Cherry Hill. She was 98 and
formerly lived in Collingswood.

Her positive and upbeat nature made those around her take notice.

"Everybody wondered why she never worried and was always praising God
and thanking Him for all of her blessings," recalls daughter Ruth
Melian of Cherry Hill. "That’s her. It’s her faith that lifts her up."

"She cherished her faith because her mother went through so much to
bring them to the country where they could worship freely, and she
loved this country. She was so patriotic because she recognized the
freedoms."

Baldadian prayed constantly and — for as long as Melian can remember
— out loud. She once told her daughter: "When I talk to my Lord, I
have to talk to Him. I can’t do it any other way."

Melian describes her mother as a woman of faith who was kind and
impartial, generous and spunky, and high-spirited, even after caring
for her husband, Samuel, who died of a brain tumor.

Baldadian will be remembered for "always smiling, always caring about
someone else," Chudd said. "I knew her when she was in her 80s and she
never had any complaints, always looked happy, always peaceful. It was
just a joy to be with her.

"She had a lot of tragedy in her life as well as a lot of joy and she
remained very accepting of it all."

Even after a next-door neighbor was killed by an intruder in 1994,
Baldadian refused to move into her daughter’s home. Both she and the
victim were senior citizens living alone in Collingswood, and Melian,
along with neighbors, feared for Baldadian’s safety. She tried putting
them all at ease.

"I’m not alone," Baldadian insisted.

"Who is with you?" concerned loved ones asked.

"The Lord is with me," she replied.

"She was not afraid," says Melian. "She was fearless."

Baldadian also knew the joys of love, parenthood and friendship. She
often chauffeured friends to Holy Trinity Armenian Apostolic Church in
Philadelphia and to picnics she organized at Cooper River Park. She
also volunteered at a women’s consignment shop that contributed a
portion of sales to CONTACT, a nonprofit that runs a toll-free crisis
hotline. She was noted for her math skills at the checkout counter and
her ability to make alterations.

"She could fix anything," Chudd remembers. "She could fix a small hole
so that you didn’t know it was there. She was our finest seamstress,
even in her 80s. She was amazing."

More amazing was her family’s escape from disaster. Five-year-old
Dorothy Parnagian was among Armenians rounded up in a massive dragnet
across the country during the genocide, from 1915 to 1918. The family
was ordered to march in a caravan toward the desert.

Dorothy’s father, an affluent importer, was killed and a cousin who
went looking for him also disappeared. Many of the men were forced to
dig their own graves before being killed.

A benevolent guard and a politically connected relative eventually
helped lead the family to safety.

"That was a miracle from God, she always said," Melian relates.

Baldadian had to leave her two sons behind, and it would be five years
before they were reunited. Before that, she had to gain
U.S. citizenship and save enough money to pay for their voyage to
America.

"Even though she lived through that horrible tragedy, her focus in
life was doing good for others," says Melian. "She never remained
bitter. She was really loving and kind to all."

pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080622/NEWS01/806220383/10 06/news01

HULIQ (press release), NC
June 20 2008

Golden Apricot Dedicates An Anniversary To William Saroyan

This year "Golden Apricot" film festival dedicates one of its
anniversary programs to Armenian American writer William Saroyan’s 100
anniversary. Golden Apricot international movie festival will take
place in Yerevan, Armenia July 13-20.

Starting creatively working at the Hollywood Golden Age, the American
Armenian prominent writer had some cooperation with the film
art. William Saroyan’s works have always been the focus of the
interest of the directors, thus there are 15 films based on his
works. William Saroyan was also a film critic and even a film
director.

At the end of 1941 MGM director Lewis B. Meyer addressed Saroyan
suggesting to write a film script, which would morally support
Americans suffering the anxiety and tension as a result of the war
against Japan. Within a short period of time, Saroyan wrote `The Human
Comedy’ script. Lewis Meyer bought the rights for 60,000 US dollars,
which was a fabulous sum of money for that time. Saroyan was convinced
that he would be the film director, but Meyer refused, arguing that he
had never filmed a film. Saroyan insisted on an opportunity,
suggesting to be provided with three days and corresponding equipment
and three days later Saroyan presented Meyer a completely new script,
based on which the `Good Job’ short film was filmed.

Nevertheless Lewis B. Meyer refused to allow Saroyan to film `The
Human Comedy’, giving that opportunity to director Clarence
Brown. After a while Saroyan wrote his probably the most famous novel
` The Human Comedy’ based on the same script. The book was issued in
1943. By an irony of fate, Saroyan was awarded Oscar for the best
script in 1943.

Within the frameworks of the Golden Apricot Film Festival, for the
first time the Armenian audience will have the opportunity to watch
three films filmed in Hollywood in 1940-ies based on William Saroyan’s
works as well as the short film `Good Job’ filmed by Saroyan. The
Golden Apricot will present 15 feature and animation films including
the ones mentioned, which are based on Saroyan’s works and filmed by
Armenian and Russian filmmakers in different years.

Within the frameworks of the Golden Apricot Festival Tigran
Guyumchyan, South California University professor will present
Saroyan’s films and deliver a lecture on his relations with the film
art.

The presentation of Artsvi Bakhchinyan’s book Four visions: Saroyan
and Hollywood actors will take place within the framework of the
Festival. It includes essays about four famous Hollywood actresses:
Lillian Gish, Greta Garbo, Miriam Hopkins, Marilyn Monroe written by
Saroyan, which are presented in the original, translated into Armenian
and Russian.

The Golden Apricot Film Festival is conducted with the support of
Ministry of Culture of Armenia.

The general sponsor of the Festival is VivaCell.

Source: Reported by Golden Apricot Film Festival