Editorial: No Cakes For This One!

EDITORIAL: NO CAKES FOR THIS ONE!
By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
January 14, 2010

The 75th anniversary of the Armenian Weekly came and went without any
fanfare. No celebration events were held, no banquets were organized,
and no cakes were cut. The economy and the Turkey-Armenia protocols
remained on top of the agenda and contributed to this amnesia.

Anniversaries didn’t stand a chance.

But the nuclear staff of the Weekly and its large base of contributors
and readers worldwide had many reasons to celebrate, and celebrate we
did, by making sure we not only survived but thrived when many other
national and ethnic newspapers are closing. We continued publishing
magazine issues bringing together dozens of prominent writers and
scholars from across the globe. We improved our website and made
it a forum of discussion and debate for thousands upon thousands of
loyal readers worldwide. And, diligently, every week-without taking a
single week off-we put out the paper as if our readers’ lives depended
on it. It all was our way of saying we are 75 years young. It all was
our way of saying, There may not be any cakes, but you’ll get a better
paper, a better magazine issue, and better online content every week.

And instead of trying desperately to bask in the glories of the
past-retelling stories about how William Saroyan and others got their
start in the Weekly-we introduced new writers and columnists, who
produce work that make us proud in the here-and-now. I am constantly
amazed at the amount of work the Armenian Weekly gets done with
the minimal resources we have. I thank my assistant editor for the
past three years, Andrew Turpin (we wish you the best of luck in
your future endeavors, Andy) and copyeditor Nayiri Arzoumanian for
their efforts. The editor receives most of the credit (and all the
criticism), but without the dedication of those who worked with me,
this paper would not have been anywhere near where it is now. I also
thank our columnists, all our contributors, and last but not least,
you, our readers. Happy Holidays!

Vladimir Vardanian: Proviso In Agreement Is Beside The Purpose

VLADIMIR VARDANIAN: PROVISO IN AGREEMENT IS BESIDE THE PURPOSE

Aysor
Jan 14 2010
Armenia

Constitutional Law specialist Vladimir Vardanian said of some aspects
of Armenian Constitutional Court’s decision on Armenian-Turkish
protocols. He said, Court’s decision doesn’t say no to provisos, but in
legal terms they are beside the purpose. Besides, the international
experience never met proviso for bilateral agreements. However,
some examples exist, in particular, in relation with multilateral
agreements.

According to analyst, proviso in protocols makes them wrong from a
legal point of view, while from political point, this doesn’t go with
Armenia’s interests.

Court’s decision can be characterized as "a document which clarifies
and sets right the diplomatic failures by Armenian side", says Vladimir
Vardanian. This is a "juristic decision" beyond political motives,
according to specialist.

Russia, Turkey To Set Up A Cooperation Council

RUSSIA, TURKEY TO SET UP A COOPERATION COUNCIL

PanARMENIAN.Net
13.01.2010 11:46 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkey and Russia agreed to set up a cooperation
council.

"We are hopeful that 2010 will be a year of economic growth," Turkish
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a meeting with Turkish
entrepreneurs in Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Moscow.

"Economic indexes are positive for development of trade between Turkey
and Russia. The governments of both countries take all essential
measures," he said, adding that the first session of the council will
be held during the year.

"The council will bring about a new era in Turkish-Russian relations,"
the Turkish PM said, TRT-Russian reported.

New Force, New Opposition-2

NEW FORCE, NEW OPPOSITION-2
Hakob Badalyan

Lragir.am
14/01/10

Any criticism of the Armenian National Congress is viewed within the
supporters of the HAK as an order of the authorities or, at least,
attempts to bring grist to the mill of the government. And in many
cases such a perception has an objective basis. The point is that
the Congress today is the only viable opposition force today. There
is, of course, the unification of political forces opposed to the
Armenian-Turkish protocols, but the public has not yet been brought
to their position on the Armenian reality in a broader context. That
is, the union had not yet told the society, what would happen if the
power acts accordingly to their requirements in the Armenian-Turkish
relations. What then will the ARF and the others do?

In the case of the Armenian National Congress the situation seems to be
the opposite. And if the "ARF and his comrades’ are opposition mainly
in relation to the Armenian-Turkish relations, the HAK is opposed
to the authorities in internal matters, having almost identical
stances with the government in connection with the Armenian-Turkish
relations. The question is where the starting point is. And hardly
anyone would argue that the starting point is the questions of foreign
policy because all starts inside the country, with the principles of
forming government, the system of government.

If these principles are not well, sooner or later the foreign policy
will be "infected" too. And in terms of the principles of forming
power, the HAK is the only viable opposition, so the criticism
addressed to it sounds like criticism of the only oppositional force
which somehow holds an effective struggle against the system and
those who serve it.

Consequently, the criticism of the Congress turns out to be an
unwitting or deliberate support of the governmental system. The
accusations of the HAK supporters to those who criticize the Congress
seem to have this logic. But is this "iron" logic and is the HAK above
all criticism as the only opposition? No, of course, it is not. First,
the structure which is fighting for democracy and freedom, but does
not accept criticism in its address devalues its struggle. There
is another side of the issue. Maybe the Congress which accuses its
critics is in collusion with the authorities thus it does not allow
a more efficient and viable force to be born.

Although in practice they should be guided by different logic – the
logic of work. And in this sense, the Armenian National Congress,
has a significant advantage because, even with mistakes and omissions,
the Congress, nevertheless, does some work in the face of thousands of
its activists, especially young people who bravely stand up against
the regime, who are not even afraid of physical violence which they
are periodically subjected. To date, other examples of the struggle
against the current regime in Armenia are not known. While this does
not mean that this struggle should occur precisely in such methods –
a natural resistance to the regime. There are many other forms of
struggle involving different periods of ‘fruiting’. But still, the
only effective way to combat today is the one used by the Armenian
National Congress.

But does Congress exist only for this? Who defines the boundaries of
the mission in general and the importance of the HAK? Here, there is
much to discuss and to criticize. The power of the Congress may also
consist in the fact that defining the steps and discussing methods of
struggle will involve not only the Congress members. The society forms
its stances by actions rather than by words. And the recent history of
the Congress is the best proof of that. If it was only in propaganda,
Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s rating would not exceed 5%. But work has changed
the situation. Consequently, the question is not the criticism sounding
to the Congress. And the new force should not look for a place under
the sun criticizing the Congress, it must win a place by its work,
of course, if it is capable of that.

Court Rules Armenian-Turkish Protocols Constitutional

COURT RULES ARMENIAN-TURKISH PROTOCOLS CONSTITUTIONAL

armradio.am
12.01.2010 17:06

The commitments included in the protocols on "Establishing diplomatic
relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey"
and "Development of bilateral relations between the Republic of
Armenia and the Republic of Turkey" correspond to the Constitution
of the Republic of Armenia, the Constitutional Court ruled today.

Today the Constitutional Court considered the protocols at a
closed-door sitting. RA President was officially represented by
Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian.

RA Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan and Turkish Foreign Minister
Ahmet Davutoglu signed Armenia-Turkey Protocols on October 10, 2009
in Zurich.

Court’s Decision: Protocols Conform To The Armenian Constitution

COURT’S DECISION: PROTOCOLS CONFORM TO THE ARMENIAN CONSTITUTION

Aysor
Jan 12 2010
Armenia

Chairman of Armenia’s Constitutional Court Gagik Harutyunyan gave
to the world the final conclusion on Armenian-Turkish documents:
protocols which were signed in Zurich on October 10 2009 conform to
the Armenian Constitution.

This decision was made by the Constitutional Court of Armenia at
today’s closed meeting limited to members only. The decision by
Constitutional Court is not appealable, besides.

In these minutes protesters continue a rally organized by the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation near the Constitutional Court to urge the
high court to invalidate the protocols.

Leading Politicians To Consider Caucasus Policy Issues

LEADING POLITICIANS TO CONSIDER CAUCASUS POLICY ISSUES

news.az
Jan 11 2010
Azerbaijan

Rasim Musabeyov The settlement of the Karabakh conflict will be
discussed in London, Moscow and Yerevan, a political scientist.

Political analyst Rasim Musabeyov has commented on issues that will
be during the four foreign visits of several leading politicians of
the world on January 12.

"The fact that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan will go to Moscow,
Foreign Minister Davutoglu will leave for London, Russia’s Foreign
Minister Lavrov will direct to Yerevan, and one of the most influential
US senators, former US presidential candidate of the Republican Party
John McCain will participate in an energy summit in Batumi shows the
major intensification of policies of the major superpowers around
our region ", said the politician.

"I believe that the main topic of discussion will be the energy
transitand security of the Caspian and Black Sea regions. At the same
time I believe that the involvement of McCain in Batumi summit has
nothing with Erdogan’s visit to Moscow, Foreign Minister Davutoglu’s
visit London, and Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov’s visit to Yerevan.

Batumi summit will address issues of oil and gas transit from Central
Asia and South Caucasus to European markets, bypassing Russia and
Turkey ", said Musabeyov.

"Meanwhile, London, Moscow and Yerevan will discuss the settlement
of the Karabakh conflict, the normalization of Armenian-Turkish
relations and other aspects of the South Caucasus geopolitics. Turkish
Foreign Minister Davutoglu will also consider the question of Turkey’s
accession to the European Union, which is actively supported by the
United Kingdom, the situation in the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan
and Yemen. And in Moscow, Erdogan and his Russian counterpart will
consider the deepening of bilateral investment, new trade and economic
and energy sources transit projects, and the state of Armenian-Turkish
relations", said Musabeyov.

"As for Lavrov’s visit to Yerevan, this is the first visit of a high
ranking Russian official to Armenia after a long pause. The sides
will review the state of the Russian-Armenian relations, experiencing
difficulties after August 2008, because Armenia has been trying to
demonstrate an independent policy ever since. They will also consider
the Karabakh conflict settlement andArmenian-Turkish relations",
said the politician.

"There is no doubt that the three visits are bound together by a common
issue under discussion – the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. In
this context, Moscow, London, Yerevan will consider the situation in
the South Caucasus, the future impact of the Karabakh conflict and
finding a compromise between the resolution of the Karabakh conflict
and normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations", concluded Musabeyov.

Yushchenko and Yanukovych Forge an Electoral Alliance

Jamestown Foundation
Jan 6 2010

Yushchenko and Yanukovych Forge an Electoral Alliance

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 2
January 5, 2010 04:51 PM
By: Taras Kuzio

On December 25, 2009 UNIAN published a secret agreement `On Political
Reconciliation and the Development of Ukraine’ leaked by Yaroslav
Kozachok, the deputy head of the presidential secretariat’s department
on domestic affairs and regional development. Kozachok resigned in
protest at the secret agreement between President Viktor Yushchenko
and Party of Regions leader Viktor Yanukovych to appoint the former as
Prime Minister in the event of Yanukovych’s election.

The Yushchenko and Yanukovych campaigns `not surprisingly` alleged
that the document was a forgery (Ukrayinska Pravda, December 28). At
the same time, its authenticity is proven by two steps undertaken by
the presidential secretariat. Firstly, the presidential secretariat’s
pressure on television channels not to discuss the document, which led
to Kozachok complaining about the return of censorship to Ukrainian
media. `It is obvious that ignoring (the document) has taken place on
instructions from `above,’ and the system has worked to block the
appearance in the mass media of information unpleasant for senior
officials’ (Ukrayinska Pravda, December 29).

This would not be the first occasion when direct intervention halted
revelations about a secret electoral alliance between
Yushchenko-Yanukovych. In December the Security Service (SBU) was
instructed by the president to investigate the appearance of large
billboards throughout Kyiv and other cities that had reproduced the
front cover of the December 4 edition of the weekly magazine
Komentarii with the headline `Yushchenko has negotiated the seat of
premier.’ The billboards, which showed Yushchenko and Yanukovych
embracing in a pose reminiscent of the Soviet and East German leaders
Leonid Brezhnev and Erich Honecker, were ordered to be taken down. The
Ukrainian media complained of `censorship.’

Secondly, if the document unveiled by Kozachok was indeed a `forgery’
then why did the president order the prosecutor-general to launch an
investigation into the publication of a `state secret?’ Yushchenko
ordered a full report within ten days on how the document was leaked,
while presidential secretariat head Vera Ulianchenko initiated an
internal investigation of Kozachok’s employment record (Ukrayinska
Pravda, December 28).

The secret agreement aims to ensure `political stability and economic
development’ and to end years of political in-fighting. Both sides
agreed compromises based upon avoiding raising issues that are
considered divisive within Ukrainian society. Yushchenko agreed not to
raise rehabilitating and promoting nationalist leaders or demanding
compulsory Ukrainian language tests in schools and universities. In
return, Yanukovych would not advocate Russian as a second state
language or call for a referendum on Ukrainian NATO membership (UNIAN,
December 25). Yanukovych has downplayed his election program
commitment to Russian as a state language and Yushchenko has not
mentioned NATO in his program.

The next section of the secret agreement calls for Yushchenko and
Yanukovych not to criticize each other. The 2010 election campaign is
noticeable for the absence of criticism by Yushchenko of Yanukovych
and the former’s daily accusations against Tymoshenko. Yushchenko has
asked voters to stay at home and not vote in round two, arguing there
is no difference between Tymoshenko and Yanukovych who will inevitably
enter the February 7 run off. A low turn-out in `Orange Ukraine’ would
result in Yanukovych’s election, while a large voter turn-out would
ensure Tymoshenko’s election since the combined `Orange’ vote is
larger. Yushchenko is in effect calling on his supporters to not vote
negatively against Yanukovych in the second round.

Playing on Western Ukrainian, anti-Russian nationalism, Yushchenko has
accused Tymoshenko of being `unpatriotic’ by referring to the fact
that she has only one ethnic Ukrainian parent (her Armenian father
separated from her mother when she was a child). In addition, since
the summer of 2008 Yushchenko has repeatedly condemned as `treasonous’
Tymoshenko’s cultivation of a pragmatic economic-energy relationship
with Russia that has brought her support from Western Europeans
anxious to avoid another gas crisis in January. Yushchenko has
appealed to Ukrainians to vote for a `Ukrainian premier’ (meaning
himself) who will not, allegedly unlike Tymoshenko, sell Ukraine to
Russia by permitting the Black Sea Fleet to remain in Sevastopol
beyond 2017, which would require a constitutional amendment that no
president could undertake (Ukrayinska Pravda, January 3). Tymoshenko
would also allegedly transfer Ukraine’s gas pipelines to Russia, an
accusation which contradicts Tymoshenko’s mobilization of parliament
in February 2007 to vote for a law banning any transfer of the
pipelines from Ukrainian state control and her March 2009 agreement
with the EU to modernize the pipeline infrastructure without Russian
involvement.

Tymoshenko is also accused of being the `biggest threat to democracy’
in Ukraine, Yushchenko has claimed (Ukrayinska Pravda, December 24).
This accusation ignores the perilous state of Ukrainian democracy, as
shown by recent Western and Ukrainian surveys, which reveal that
Ukrainians associate democracy with `chaos’ following years of
instability and elite in-fighting.

The `Coalition of Political Reconciliation and Development of Ukraine’
would propose Yushchenko as its candidate for prime minister. The
basis of this coalition remains unexplained, since Yushchenko controls
only 15 out of 72 Our Ukraine deputies.

Yushchenko has always wavered between supporting a grand coalition
with the Party of Regions or a `democratic’ coalition with the
Tymoshenko bloc (BYuT). Following the March 2006 elections Yushchenko
sent the Prime Minister (and head of Our Ukraine) Yuriy Yekhanurov to
negotiate a grand coalition and Roman Besmertnyi to form a
`democratic’ coalition. Following the dissolution of parliament in
April 2007, Yushchenko negotiated a compromise with the Party of
Regions to hold pre-term elections in September in exchange for a
grand coalition. During the 2007 election campaign Yushchenko
campaigned for a `democratic’ coalition, which was established with
Tymoshenko as its candidate for prime minister in December 2007. Raisa
Bohatyriova, the head of the Party of Regions parliamentary faction,
was appointed as secretary of the National Security and Defense
Council (NRBO) who, together with the presidential secretariat head
Viktor Baloga, spent 2008 seeking to undermine the Tymoshenko
government in which Yushchenko had demanded that half the cabinet
posts go to Our Ukraine.

The agreement seeks a grand coalition through a Yanukovych presidency,
but will again fail for the same reasons that it has in the past.
Yushchenko will be unable to ensure that a parliamentary majority will
vote for him: Our Ukraine deputy Oleksandr Tretiakov said that
parliament would never vote for Yushchenko’s candidacy (Ukrayinska
Pravda, December 15). Tymoshenko would therefore remain a
constitutionally powerful prime minister under President Yanukovych.

ache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=35871&tx_ttn ews%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=e9627f75db

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_c

A Family Tree Uprooted by a 60-Year-Old Secret

New York Times
Jan 5 2010

A Family Tree Uprooted by a 60-Year-Old Secret

ISTANBUL ‘ Fethiye Cetin recalled the day her identity shattered.

She was a young law student when her beloved grandmother Seher took
her aside and told her a secret she had hidden for 60 years: that she,
the grandmother, was born a Christian Armenian 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.

Her grandmother revealed to her that her real name was Heranus and
that her biological parents had escaped to New York. Heranus, Ms.
Cetin learned, was just one of thousands of Armenian children who were
kidnapped and adopted by Turkish families during the genocide of up to
1.5 million Armenians by 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 which
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 member of the estimated
50,000-strong 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 when the killings
occurred, mostly in the east.)

The latest tentative step toward healing generations of acrimony
between the two countries took place in October on a soccer field in
the northwestern Turkish city of Bursa, when President Serzh Sarkisian
became the first Armenian head of state to travel to Turkey to attend
a soccer game between the two countries’ national teams. In this
latest round of soccer diplomacy, Mr. Sarkisian was joined at the
match by President Abdullah Gul of Turkey, who had travelled 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
re-open 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 sizeable diaspora ‘ estimated at more than seven million ‘
in the United States, France and elsewhere is alarmed that the new
warmth will 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 key obstacle.

But Ms. Cetin argued that the most enduring consequence could be
helping to overcome mutual recriminations. She said Armenians have
been battling the collective amnesia of Turks, who contend that the
collapse of the Ottoman Empire during World War I was bloody and that
those Armenians who perished were victims of that chaos.

`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
that grandmother revealed her Armenian past.

Heranus, she said, was only a child in 1915 when Turkish soldiers
arrived in their 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 January 19, 2007, Mr. Dink was
assassinated outside his office by a young ultranationalist.

Ms. Cetin published a memoir about her grandmother in 2004. She says
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. I wanted to question the silence
of people like my grandmother who kept their stories hidden for years,
while going through the pain.’

When Heranus 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, `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 America.

`We all keep hoping and praying that you are well,’ it said.

Sebnem Arsu contributed reporting.

d/europe/06iht-turkey.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/worl

Winners of ROA 2009 State Awards in Literature and Art announced

Winners of Republic of Armenia 2009 State Awards in Literature and Art
announced

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 30, NOYAN TAPAN. Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan
on December 29 signed a decree on conferring the Republic of Armenia
2009 State Awards in Literature and Art.

According to the RA presidential press service, the Republic of
Armenia 2009 State Awards were conferred on:

1) in literature – to Vahagn Grigorian for the book "The River of Time",

2) in music – to Yervand Yerkanian for the work "Chronicon",

3) in fine arts – to Ararat Aghasian, Hravard Hakobian, Murad
Hasratian, and Vigen Ghazarian for the work "The History of Armenian
Art",

4) in architecture and urban development – to Grigor Azizian (team
head), Stepan Lazarian, Levon Khristaforian, Hayk Aivazian, Vahandukht
Yereghian, Griman Hovsepian (architects), and Albert Hayrapetian
(designer) for the new administrative complex of the RA Ministry of
Defense in Yerevan.