RA FOREIGN MINISTER BELIEVES THAT HIS OCCUPYING THAT POST FOR TEN
YEARS IS ENOUGH
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 20, NOYAN TAPAN. Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Armenia Vartan Oskanian believes that his occupying that post for
ten years is enough.
“I can say with confidence that the Foreign Minister must be changed
in ten years, and a new person must be,” the Minister said in the
interview to the “Haykakan Zhamanak” (Armenian Time) daily. The
10th year of V.Oskanian’s officiating will be on the day of the 2007
parliamentary elections. Mentioning that it would not be right to be
a minister for longer than 10 years, V.Oskanian assured that he has
no striving for remaining on that post. Responding the question of
“Haykakan Zhamanak” if it means that it is the time for V.Oskanian’s
becoming the president, the Minister said: “No, I did not see anything
like that, I have not decided yet what may next deeds will be, but
to remain as a minister for the next five years as well, I thing that
it will not be right.”
In V.Oskanian’s words, he has not made a decision yet about his next
deeds after the parliamentary elections. “I did not decide as today
the political field is very changeable, it is necessary to wait, to
see what developments will take place, I’ll decide my role in those
new developments,” the Minister said, adding: “I clarified one thing
for me that I want see a normal state, I want live with my family,
children in a normal state. I’ll work for it, I’ll struggle for it
but what displays that struggle will have, what appearance will get,
the time will show it.” In V.Oskanian’s words, there is a number
of problems in Armenia today about which “one must speak opener”
and the solution of which is important. He, particularly, mentioned
three of them: one must cure the political field, must liquidate the
authorities-society bar, that is, “lack of mutual trust,” and the
third, growth of effeciency of the government’s activity must be.

CEREMONY DEDICATED TO 15th ANNIVERSARY OF INDEPENDENCE OF ARMENIA
HELD IN PARIS
PARIS, OCTOBER 20, NOYAN TAPAN. RA Prime Minister Andranik Margarian
and the RA delegation members, who are on a working visit in France,
participated on late October 18 in a ceremony dedicated to the
15th anniversary of independence of the Republic of Armenia held in
the Garnier Opera in Paris. Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, the French
Minister of Culture made a speech after the opening speech made by
Edvard Nalbandian, the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of Armenia to France. Then the floor was given to the RA Prime
Minister. Mentioning that the Armenian people celebrated with
great lustre the 15th anniversary of the independence of Armenia,
A.Margarian emphasized that the young Republic of Armenia and the
people made great efforts to overcome political, economic, social
and other most difficult problems arisen on the independence way. The
Prime Minister also touched upon the process fixed in the economy of
Armenia after overcoming difficulties of the first years, reforms
aimed to building democracy, free market relations, a legal state,
growth of the country’s defensive capacity. The RA government head
also touched upon in his speech the practical assistance of friendly
countries and first of all, of France, in the issue of recognition and
condemnation of the Armenian Genocide, mentioning that Armenia observes
it as a preventing factor for similar crimes against the mankind are
never repeated in future. According to the information submitted to
Noyan Tapan by the RA Government’s Information and Public Relations
Department, RA Prime Minister Andranik Margarian’s meeting with Paris
Mayor Bertrand Delanoe took place on October 19 during which issues of
mutual interest relating to the bilateral cooperation were discussed.

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY EXPECTS FROM ARMENIA JUST DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS,
U.S. AMBASSADOR TO OSCE SAYS
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 20, NOYAN TAPAN. Receiving on October 19 the
delegation headed by Julie Finley, the U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE,
RA National Assembly Speaker Tigran Torosian gave detailed information
about processes relating to amendments to the Electoral Code, attaching
importance to adoption of those amendments at a level proper to
the democtratic standards, in time, with accounting of the experts’
conclusions. It was mentioned that today an agreement was reached as
a result of a discussion with political forces to discuss the draft
Electoral Code in the first reading during the coming NA four-days and
to adopt in the second reading and also with agreeing some problematic
issues with experts of international structures before the second
reading to adopt the Electoral Code in the second reading during the
December four-day. Julie Finley attached importance to the issue of
observation missions’ both short-term and long-term participation in
the parliamentary elections. He emphasized that the international
community expects from Armenia free, just democratic elections for
holding of which not only a good Electoral Code is important but also
its application. Exclusion of double standards and application of joint
standards of estimation were bilateraly touched upon in this issue.
T.Torosian mentioned that first of all the authorities of Armenia
are interested in holding elections according to the democratic
standards, attaching importance to their influence on the country’s
future development and progress. As Noyan Tapan was informed by the
RA NA Public Relations Department, the Nagorno Karabakh issue was
also touched upon at the meeting. As J.Finley represents at the OSCE
a Minsk Group Co-Chair country, T.Torosian presented her some of
his viewpoints relating to the processes of overcoming the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict. The NA Speaker mentioned that any international
organization is free to discuss the Nagorno Karabakh problem (for
example, it was discussed at the Council of Europe and a resolution
was adopted), those discussions are sometimes useful as well. But when
attempts are made to move the conflict settlement problems to other
international organizations, it is inadmissible as a settlement of
conflicts is a difficult issue, demand much time and deep awareness
of the problem. So, in T.Torosian’s words, similar attempts bring
not to finding settlement in other instances but to failure of the
process. The NA Speaker attached importance to the problem solution
just within the frameworks of the Minsk Group where the Co-Chairmen
are well informed about all the details.
It is not occasional that just they proposed recently a resolution,
which, unlike the previous ones, is notable for creating real
possibilities for the settlement: this resolution proposes not to
oppose but to combine the principles of the nations’ self-determination
and territorial integrity.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Thursday, October 19, 2006
****************************************
THE CAPITALIST AND THE PAUPER
*********************************************
When warned by his prosperous host not to spit on the floor, Diogenes is said to have spat on the man’s face explaining he could not find a meaner receptacle. I challenge anyone not to love such a man.
*
ON STYLE
***********************
If you have a choice between a long paragraph and a brief sentence, choose the sentence. Between a sentence and a single word, choose the word. Between a word of two or more syllables and a monosyllable, choose the latter. Between a monosyllable and silence, why say anything?
*
FROM BUNS TO BUGGERS
*********************************************
When in his famous Berlin speech Kennedy identified himself as a “Berliner,” he did not know and no one warned him that a “berliner” is a bun, in the same way that a frankfurter is a sausage, a hamburger is a hamburger, and bugger is short for Bulgarian. Now, to say “I am a berliner” may not be as bad as saying “I am a bugger,” but it is in that neighborhood.
*
SEMANTICS 101
*******************************
There is a difference between smart and smart aleck, and between wise and wisenheimer. We are not smart, we are alecks; neither are we wise, we are heimers.
*
ON PROGRESS
*************************
We owe progress more to the evolution of the thumb and the invention of zero and less to the so-called greatness and nobility of the human spirit.
*
ON BEING OBJECTIVE
*********************************
If I have a low opinion of my fellow Armenians, it may be because I have an even lower opinion of my fellow men, myself included.
*
MEMO
************************
I write to remind myself, and in reminding myself I hope to remind others that it takes honesty and courage to be objective, and no matter how objective we are we can never be objective enough.
*
CONFESSION I
************************
Charlatans are not born but made.
*
CONFESSION II
*****************************
In my younger days I produced a great deal of chauvinist crapola because as a slum-dweller I was dependent on the charity of swine.
#
Friday, October 20, 2006
********************************************
ARMENIANS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
************************************************
ON HORESEBACK THROUGH ASIA MINOR by Frederick Burnaby (originally published in 1898, reissued in 2002) contains many references, not all of them flattering, to Armenians – their monasteries, churches, priests, bishops, officials, bazaars, money-lenders, newspapers, schools, women and so on.
“Armenian women were closely veiled whenever they left the house,” we read here, and: “In many instances, an Armenian was not permitted to see his wife before marriage, and had to take her, as the Yankees say, ‘on spec.’”
Elsewhere: “An Armenian lady is in no way educated. She is the slave of her husband, and has to do all sorts of menial work for him – wash his feet, rub them dry, and wait at table. From her earliest childhood a girl is brought up to consider herself as a slave in her father’s house. Until Armenians abandon these barbarous customs, their so-called Christianity will not do them much good.”
*
In an appendix titled “The Corruption of Armenian Officials,” we are told Armenians are divided into Gregorians, Protestants, and Catholics, and their officials, in addition to being “disgustingly servile,” are as corrupt as their Turkish counterparts.
To readers who may begin to suspect that the author may have been a Turcophile, I suggest they read Yervant Odian’s realistic novels. But we don’t have to travel back in time to verify Burnaby’s observations. Let us ask instead if anything has changed now that we live in a free and democratic country like the United States.
*
On the subject of the Armenian press, Burnaby has this to say: “Armenian newspapers frequently publish news which cannot be agreeable to the Government, and they are not interfered by the authorities.”
What would happen today if one of our editors were to publish an unflattering article about one of our bosses or benefactors? No need to use our imagination here because when one of our editors did exactly that, he was dragged to court, almost driven out of business on a legal technicality, suffered a stroke, and almost died. A grim reminder of the old French adage, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
*
Another one of Burnaby’s observation that is worth quoting: “The Armenians who profess the Armenian faith detest any member of their community who has accepted the Roman Catholic or Protestant doctrines, the Christians being much more intolerant than the Turks.”
*
About the author we read: “Frederick Gustavus Burnaby was an extraordinary person. Reputed to be the strongest man in the British Army, he was also fluent in seven languages…. He spent five months riding across some of the cruelest winter landscape in the world before hastening home to write this best-seller.”
*
Please note that the Index is misleading. The references to Armenians in the text are many more than the number of pages cited in the Index.
#
Saturday, October 21, 2006
****************************************
DISAPPOINTMENT
***************************
A surprise call from a gentle reader asking about my health. “I heard you were sick,” he said. When I told him there was nothing wrong with me, he was inconsolable.
*
ON SO-CALLED FACTS
**********************************
When a man deals only in facts and certainties, you can be sure of one thing: the facts on which his certainties are based have been carefully and cunningly selected, tailored, and doctored.
*
SOUND BITES
***********************
In a totalitarian environment to think for oneself can be a capital offense.
*
In my youth I never asked myself “Am I right?” because I was always right.
*
Turks called us their “most loyal millet.” By loyal they meant subservient or, in the words of an English traveler, “disgustingly servile” – a noteworthy distinction.
*
A jackass does not ask himself, “Am I a jackass?” It is the same with charlatans and dupes.
*
I try to be objective; therefore I am an enemy of the people.
*
Cowards are better equipped at playing it safe than heroes.
*
Stanislaw Lec (1909-1966), Polish writer and dissident: “No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.”
*
“The mob shouts with one big mouth and eats with a thousand little ones.”
#

Attorney General Moonbeam?
Weekly Standard: Jerry Brown Keeps On Running
cbsnews.com
October 17, 2006
While the rest of the nation lurches ahead to Election Day,
California remains stuck in a time warp.
Take the governor’s race between incumbent Arnold Schwarzenegger and
State Treasurer Phil Angelides. It started out as the 1984
presidential contest redux, with Arnold reprising the role of Ronald
Reagan (hopeless optimist) and Angelides that of Walter Mondale
(doomed the moment he called for higher taxes). That was before
Angelides set the way-back machine to the 1960s, channeling his inner
Tom Hayden and vowing to sue the Bush administration to return
California’s National Guard troops from Iraq. Unfortunately, for
Angelides, time isn’t on his side; the polls suggest he’s headed for
a double-digit drubbing.
Then there’s California’s other blast from the past: Jerry Brown,
who’s running for state attorney general. It marks the eighth time
that Brown, who succeeded Reagan as governor of California 32 years
ago this January, has sought statewide or national office That
includes presidential runs in the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s, but doesn’t
begin to cover two terms as Oakland mayor (his current job), a
two-year stint as chairman of the state Democratic party (he’d later
drop his party affiliation before returning to the fold prior to his
Oakland mayoral bid), plus some creative moonlighting as a talk-radio
host, a student of Zen Buddhism in Japan, and a buddy of Mother
Teresa in Calcutta.
It’s a race with dynastic overtones: Jerry Brown’s father, Pat,
served two terms as California’s attorney general and two terms as
governor during the ’50s and ’60s; his sister Kathleen served one
term as state treasurer before getting trounced in the 1994
governor’s race. Despite the lengthy resume, no one is suggesting
that Jerry Brown is geriatric – at 68, he’s five years younger than
California’s senior senator, Dianne Feinstein. Still, it seems
strange that the Brown torch hasn’t already been passed to a new
generation. In November 1982, while Brown was wrapping up his final
year as governor, Mario Cuomo was winning a first term as governor of
New York. Twenty-four years later, it’s Cuomo’s son, Andrew, who’s
running to be New York’s next attorney general – the same job Brown
covets in California.
Brown has attempted to portray his mayoral record as that of a
Giuliani-type city boss who’s tough on crime. But homicides in
Oakland are up nearly 100 percent since Brown first took office. And
that’s just the tip of the iceberg, says Brown’s opponent, state
senator Charles Poochigian, whose campaign eagerly counts the ways in
which Governor Brown was soft on crime: pardoning seven first-degree
murderers; supporting a prisoners’ bill of rights while opposing a
crime victims’ bill of rights; vetoing a bill reinstating the death
penalty (a veto the state legislature overrode); and opposing lethal
injection as California’s method of capital punishment.
Brown has responded that the pardoned murderers were elderly, and
that as attorney general, he would carry out laws allowing
executions. If so, he might want to explain the company he keeps.
Brown’s radio ads are voiced over by Peter Coyote, the actor and Bay
Area fixture who’s a regular at San Quentin death-penalty protests.
And yet Brown will not be easily defeated. He has a 15-point lead in
the polls, better name recognition than Poochigian, and a larger
campaign war chest. Poochigian hails from Fresno, which isn’t much of
a political stronghold (his family settled there to take up farming
after fleeing the Armenian genocide, and his mother still lives on
their original 20-acre plot). But he does have at least two factors
working for him: A Schwarzenegger landslide over Angelides could
sweep fellow Republican candidates into office; and Brown’s support
has not grown beyond 45 percent, suggesting a skeptical electorate.
It wasn’t skepticism but downright fatigue and frustration that led
to Brown’s defeat the last time he ran for statewide office, in the
1982 U.S. Senate race won by Republican Pete Wilson (who also
defeated Brown’s sister in the 1994 governor’s race). Brown had been
governor for the previous eight years – and had traded in the
governor’s mansion for a floor mattress in more Spartan digs, tooled
around town in a Plymouth instead of a state limo, escorted Linda
Ronstadt to Africa, elevated Rose Bird to the state’s high court, and
seemed powerless against infesting Medflies. After Brown proposed the
creation of a state space academy, Mike Royko nicknamed him Governor
Moonbeam. But will voters in this election – some of whom weren’t
alive in 1982, much less eligible to vote – remember those greatest
hits? Are they aware of Brown’s other oddball musings, such as
likening capital punishment to “Hitler’s Germany” and characterizing
corporate America as “an out-of-control Frankenstein”?
It’s that last quote that’s worth remembering. In California,
attorneys general hail from one of two parties, and in office they
pursue one of two paths: serving blue-collar, law-and-order justice,
or attacking white-collar crime. George Deukmejian, an attorney
general during the ’70s and early ’80s and Brown’s successor as
governor, made a name for himself as a death-penalty champion.
By contrast, the man Brown hopes to succeed as attorney general,
Democrat Bill Lockyer, seems obsessed with corporate malfeasance.
Lockyer has used his office to sue Enron, whom he accused of gouging
California during the state’s energy crisis. More recently, he filed
a lawsuit against a half-dozen automakers for allegedly contributing
to global warming, and indicted Hewlett-Packard executives for
corporate espionage.
Where would an Attorney General Brown take California? The post
allows for tremendous political latitude. In California, the attorney
general not only represents the state in civil and criminal court
proceedings, but also acts as a patron saint for consumers’ and
victims’ rights and environmental groups. The job is made-to-order
for any politician with higher aspirations and a fertile imagination.
And Brown seems still to have both. Because he served as governor
before term limits went into effect, he could seek the top job again
in 2010. “I have a bright future, into my late 70s,” Brown has told
reporters.
At the very least it should be interesting. “I will be an unusual
attorney general. I will not be like the other ones,” he said back in
April. Brown also tells reporters he wants to take a “common sense”
approach to the office, which means settling civil lawsuits,
protecting the environment, plus addressing city crime and corporate
abuses. Poochigian, on the other hand, would likely build on his
legislative record, which includes tougher penalties for sexual
predators, gun-toting felons, and identity thieves.
As California secretary of state in the early 1970s, Brown showed
what kind of attorney general he might turn out to be. During his one
term in that position, he brought suits against Standard Oil of
California, ITT, Gulf Oil, and Mobil for violating campaign finance
laws. For Democrats, three decades later, corporate-bashing is, if
anything, more in vogue In New York, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
is about to be elected governor after using his office’s crusades
against the securities, insurance, entertainment, and computer
industries to raise his profile. And for Brown, too, becoming
attorney general would be an opportunity to show off his timeless
knack for self-aggrandizement.
Bill Whalen is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he
follows California and national politics.
17/opinion/main2099143.shtml

Turken turken den armenischen Genozid
uerken-tuerken-den-armenischen-genozid/
Artikel von Malte Olschewski vom 16.10.2006, 09:01 Uhr im Ressort Politik,
Vermischtes | 8 Comments
Die Turkei halt an der geturkten Version des Volkermordes an den Armeniern
fest. Es seien “kriegsbedingte Deportationen” gewesen, die 1915/16 etwa
300.000 Armeniern das Leben gekostet hatten. Am 12.10. erhielt die Turkei
von Europa zwei deutliche Hinweise fur eine Textanderung. Der
Romanschriftsteller Orhan Pamuk, der mehrfach fur ein turkisches
Schuldgestandnis eingetreten war, wurde mit dem Literaturnobelpreis
ausgezeichnet. Am gleichen Tag beschloss die franzosische
Nationalversammlung, dass die Leugnung des Genozids an der Armeniern als
Haftstrafen geahndet werden kann.
Das Europa-Parlament hat ein Schuldgestandnis zu einer Voraussetzung eines
EU-Beitritts gemacht. Drohungen Ankaras mit einem Wirtschaftsboykott und das
hartnackige Festhalten an der langst schon widerlegten Version werden nun zu
einer Hurde. Die historische Wahrheit kam schon nach Ende des Ersten
Weltkrieges ans Licht. Die Opferzahl von uber einer Millionen Armenier ist
seitdem durch unzahlige Dokumente und Untersuchungen erhartet worden. (Siehe
auch: “Armenien und der Volkermord” von Akcam Taner) Dabei neigen judische
Historiker wie Bernard Lewis oder Gilles Veinstein eher zur turkischen
Version, da der Genozid an den Armeniern die von ihnen vertretene Theorie
der Einzigartigkeit oder Singularitat des judischen Holocausts in Frage
stellen konnte.
Die Ursache des langsamen Niedergangs des Osmanischen Reiches lag wie bei
anderen großen Staatskonglomeraten in seiner Uberdehnung. Die jungturkische
Bewegung, die seit 1908 in Istanbul an der Macht war, sah in den vielen,
unruhig gewordenen Minoritaten die Ursache des Verfalls. Hierbei gerieten
die Armenier ins Fadenkreuz. Sie kontrollierten im Osmanischen Reich durch
Tuchtigkeit und auch Rafinesse den Handel. Außerdem waren sie als Nachkommen
Urartus ein antikes Volks, das als erstes das Christentum als Staatsreligion
angenommen hatte. Armenien hatte nie Eroberungsfeldzuge gefuhrt, da es sich
standig zwischen Byzanz, den Persern und den spater aus Zentralasien
herankommenden Osmanen zu behaupten hatte. Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts hatten
die Armenier in vielen Gebieten der Turkei Enklaven der Ausschließlichkeit
gebildet. Das fuhrte zu Aggressionen und zu Massakern durch die benachbarte
Mehrheit, womit sich eine Parallele zum Schicksal der Juden anbahnte.
Mit dem Kriegsausbruch 1914 kampften armenische Freiwillige auf Seiten der
russischen Armee. Auch hinter den russisch-turkischen Kampflinien wurden
Armenier aktiv. Das Zentralkomitee der Jungturken beschloss Anfang 1915 ein
Programm zur Vernichtung der Armenier. Dazu wurden eigene Sonderkommandos,
meist aus Kurden, aufgestellt. Armenische Soldaten in der turkischen Armee
wurden entwaffnet und exekutiert. Die armenische Zivilbevolkerung wurde an
sieben Platzen konzentriert. Alte Manner, Frauen und Kinder wurden zu
Gewaltmarschen in Richtung Suden und in syrische Wuste gezwungen. Hierbei
ist es zu ungeheuerlichen Verbrechen gekommen. Neben den Marschkolonnen ist
auch in anderen, armenischen Enklaven die Bevolkerung niedergemetzelt
worden. Franz Werfel hat in seinem Roman: “Die vierzig Tage des Musa Dagh”
das Schicksal einer solchen Enklave geschildert. Nur 100.000 Armenier haben
den als Deportation getarnten Marsch uberlebt. Vielleicht 200.000 konnten
fluchten. Zehntausende Frauen wurden von den am Wegrand lauernden Moslems
vergewaltigt oder als Nebenfrauen genommen. Und immer wieder kamen
freiwillige Kurden, um mitzumorden im großen Genozid.
Die deutschen Verbundeten waren informiert. Pastor Johannes Lepsius suchte
Berlin mit Dokumenten und Augenzeugenberichten zum Eingreifen zu bewegen.
Die deutsche Heeresleitung hatte zu Kriegsbeginn rund 800 Offiziere als
Militarhilfe nach Konstantinopel entsandt. In funfzig turkischen Stadten
arbeiteten deutsche Konsulate. Berlin war informiert und ist dem Verbundeten
aus strategischen Grunden nicht in die Zugel gefallen. Die Rolle der
deutschen Offiziere war unterschiedlich. Einige wie Liman von Sanders sollen
zu retten versucht haben. Goltz-Pascha und Fritz von Schellendorf sollen am
Deportationsplan mitgewirkt haben. Gesichert ist die Tatsache, dass
Deutschland die Flucht jener Paschas ermoglicht hat, die nach dem Krieg von
einem Sultansgericht zum Tod verurteilt worden waren. Der
Hauptverantwortliche, Talaat Pascha, fand Asyl in Berlin. Dort wurde er bald
von einem jungen Armenier erschossen, der unter einem Haufen ermordeter
Landsleute uberlebt hatte. In Nordostanatolien und im Kaukasus wogten die
Kampfe in einzigartigen Verzahnungen hin und her, wobei die Armenier auch
Rache geubt haben. Der Vormarsch der Turken wurde von Armeniern zusammen mit
der neuen Sowjetarmee bei Sardarapat aufgehalten. 1922 wurde Armenien ein
Teil der neu gegrundeten Sowjetunion.
Kemal Ataturk hatte nach Feldzugen gegen die Siegermachte im anatolischen
Kernland des Osmanischen Reiches die Republik gegrundet. Er hat die
Armeniermorde als “Schandtat der Vergangenheit” bezeichnet. Und mit diesem
Ausspruch des vergotterten Staatsgrunders lebte die Turkei bis heute relativ
bequem. Kemal war 1906 Mitglied des jungturkischen Komitees geworden. Er
stritt mit Kriegsminister Enver Pascha und wurde nach Kriegsausbruch 1914
als Militarattache nach Sofia verschoben. Er kann in dieser Position von den
Beschlussen uber die Armenier hochstens gewusst haben. Er vollbrachte 1915
Heldentaten bei der Abwehr der alliierten Landung bei Gallipoli. Er wurde
als Retter von Istanbul zum Pascha ernannt und ab 1916 mit der Fuhrung der
Front im Kaukasus beauftragt. Hier und auch spater hatte er immer wieder mit
der armenischen Frage zu tun. Kemal Ataturk und die Armenier sind als ein
extrem heikles Thema in der Staatswerdung der Turkei verborgen worden.
Wenn eine derart offenkundige, historische Wahrheit von einem Staat des
Jahres 2006 mit derartiger Vehemenz geleugnet wird, muss es tief reichende
Grunde dafur geben. Noch immer wirkt hier der Zusammenbruch des riesigen
Osmanenreiches. Es mag auch die historische Nahe des vergotterten
Staatsgrunders Ataturk zu den Massenmorden sein. Es sind trotz der von
Ataturk erzwungenen Sakularisierung in den letzten Jahren islamische Krafte
immer starker geworden. Die Turkei hat sich in letzten Jahrzehnten als
regionale Großmacht und Fuhrer panturkischer Bewegungen vielleicht nicht nur
in Zentralasien gesehen.
Artikel aus “Readers Edition”:
Link zum Artikel:
tuerken-den-armenischen-genozid/
–Boundary_(ID_b yE/QPqS9y/kSQn4wSOwHA)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Turken sehen eine “Kriegserklarung”
artikel_268671.html
Der Vorwurf des Volkermordes an den Armeniern und das franzosische
Genozid-Gesetz versetzen die Turkei in Rage
Auch fast ein Jahrhundert nach den Ereignissen lost der Vorwurf des
Volkermords an den Armeniern in der Turkei noch heftige Reaktionen aus. Denn
die Turken sehen keinen geplanten Genozid, sondern sprechen von Opfern der
Kriegswirren.
Massiver diplomatischer Druck fruchtete so wenig wie die offene Drohung des
turkischen Premiers Erdogan, die Turken wurden nichts, aber Frankreich werde
die Turkei verlieren. Die franzosische Nationalversammlung stellte gestern
die Behauptung unter Strafe, die Massaker an den Armeniern durch die
osmanischen Turken vor 90 Jahren seien kein “Volkermord” gewesen (vgl. Text
unten). Turkische Politiker, unterstutzt von Medien und der Bevolkerung,
sind emport. Kein franzosischer Geschaftsmann, so droht ein Sprecher der
Istanbuler Industriellenkammer, soll kunftig in der Turkei Vertrage
abschliessen konnen. Wahrend turkische Politiker von einer “Kriegserklarung”
Frankreichs gegen ihre Heimat sprechen, ruft der Industriellenverband nach
einem nationalen Aktionsplan, mit dem die Turkei der Welt klar machen soll,
dass sich Frankreich geirrt habe.
Turkische Medien sehen die Entscheidung Frankreichs im Zusammenhang mit
einer wachsenden anti-turkischen Stimmung in Europa. “Die Opposition gegen
die Turkei in der EU beginnt ihr hassliches Gesicht zu zeigen”, schreibt der
Kommentator Cengiz Candar. Erdogan erinnert Frankreich an seine koloniale
Vergangenheit, betont jedoch, er wolle nicht Vergeltung uben. “Wir saubern
Schmutz nicht mit Schmutz.” Selbst Mitglieder der winzigen armenischen
Gemeinde der Turkei (kaum mehr als hunderttausend Menschen) schliessen sich
der Kritik an. Sie furchten nun noch starkeren Druck durch eine
nationalistisch aufgeheizte Stimmung im Land.
Die Entscheidung zeige, “dass jene, die die Meinungsfreiheit in der Turkei
einschranken, und jene, die dies in Frankreich tun, dieselbe Mentalitat
haben”, bemerkt der turkisch-armenische Journalist Hrant Dink. Er war im
Vorjahr wegen “Beleidigung des Turkentums” zu sechs Monaten Gefangnis
verurteilt worden. Die Strafe, die er sich wegen eines Artikels uber die
Massaker an den Armeniern zugezogen hatte, wurde unterdessen suspendiert.
“In der Turkei stehe ich vor Gericht, weil ich gesagt habe, es sei Genozid
gewesen.” Er wolle nun nach Frankreich gehen und dort – entgegen seiner
Uberzeugung – sagen, es sei nicht Genozid gewesen. Denn die Meinungsfreiheit
habe Vorrang. “Die beiden Staaten konnen dann wetteifern, wer mich ins
Gefangnis wirft.”
3000 Jahre alte Gemeinde
Auch fast ein Jahrhundert nach den dramatischen Ereignissen im
zusammenbrechenden Osmanischen Reich lost der Vorwurf des Genozids in der
Turkei immer noch heftige Emotionen aus. Bis heute ist eine objektive
wissenschaftliche Diskussion uber dieses Thema undenkbar. Autoren, die sich
zum Volkermord bekennen oder sich nur vage kritisch mit der offiziellen
turkischen Position auseinander setzen, werden mit Gefangnis bedroht, von
turkischen Nationalisten sogar mit dem Tod. Eine derartige Kampagne musste
auch der Schriftsteller Orhan Pamuk durchstehen. Seine Auszeichnung mit dem
Literatur-Nobelpreis (vgl. Seite 33) ist zweifellos ein zusatzlicher Schlag
fur die radikalen turkischen Nationalisten.
3000 Jahre lang lebte eine bluhende armenische Gemeinde in der Region, die
sich vom Schwarzen Meer und dem Mittelmeer bis zum Kaspischen Meer
erstreckte. Im Gebiet um den Berg Ararat grundeten die Armenier den ersten
christlichen Staat der Welt, der schliesslich Teil des Osmanischen Reiches
wurde. Obschon als christliche Minderheit in diesem riesigen Reich
diskriminiert, erreichten die Armenier einen hohen Bildungstandard.
Beeinflusst von den Idealen der Franzosischen Revolution, drangten sie im
ausgehenden 19. Jahrhundert nach politischen Reformen, nach Demokratie und
Mitbestimmung.
Armenier als interner Feind
Mit dem Zusammenbruch des Osmanischen Reichs wuchs ihre Hoffnung auf einen
unabhangigen Staat. Doch als die Jungturken das Reich zu retten und alle
Turk-Volker bis zum Kaukasus und Zentralasien zu vereinen suchten, standen
ihnen die christlichen Armenier als grosstes Hindernis im Wege. Im Ersten
Weltkrieg schlug sich die Turkei auf die Seite Osterreich-Ungarns und
Deutschlands, wahrend die Armenier mit Russland kollaborierten. So wurden
sie fur die turkischen Nationalisten zu einem internen Feind.
Die Kriegswirren boten die willkommene Moglichkeit, die armenische Frage “zu
losen”. Armenische und viele unabhangige internationale Historiker hegen
keine Zweifel, dass die osmanischen Turken 1915 bis 1917 einen Genozid
geplant und mehr als eine Million Armenier getotet und den Rest vertrieben
haben, so dass heute in ihrer ost-anatolischen Urheimat fast keine Armenier
mehr leben. Fast alle turkischen Historiker geben zu, dass viele Armenier
wahrend dieser Konflikte ums Leben kamen. Doch sie schliessen sich der
offiziellen Position an, dass es sich nicht um einen vom Staat geplanten
Genozid gehandelt habe. Offiziell beharrt Ankara auf dem Standpunkt, dass in
den Kriegswirren rund 300 000 Armenier und ebenso viele Turken ums Leben
gekommen sind.
Die Anerkennung des Genozids wurden turkische Nationalisten nicht nur als
schwere nationale Demutigung werten. Diese Frage ist auch mit tief
verwurzelten Ängsten verknupft. Ankara befurchtet, die Armenier konnten
Kompensationsforderungen oder gar territoriale Anspruche auf ihre
sudostanatolische Heimat stellen. Im turkischen Nationalbewusstsein bleibt
deshalb bis heute der Armenier ein Feind. Und in der Haltung Frankreichs
sieht Ankara eine neue internationale Verschworung gegen die Heimat.
Blochers Mission
Auch die Beziehungen zwischen der Schweiz und der Turkei sind wegen der
Leugnung des Volkermords an den Armeniern angespannt. Die
Anti-Rassismus-Strafnorm stellt die Leugnung des Genozids in der Schweiz
unter Strafe. Aufgrund dieses Gesetzes laufen zwei Strafuntersuchungen gegen
prominente Turken, die den Volkermord an den Armeniern offentlich geleugnet
haben. Justizminister Christoph Blocher nutzte vergangene Woche seinen
Turkei-Besuch, um die Strafnorm zu kritisieren. Blochers Provokation sorgte
in der Heimat fur Emporung. Der Justizminister strebt eine Änderung des
Antirassismusgesetzes an.
Der Bundesrat wird sich bereits an seiner Sitzung von kommender Woche mit
Blochers Vorschlag befassen. Der Antrag durfte jedoch keine Chance haben.
Der Bundesrat hat bereits – in praktisch gleicher Zusammensetzung – mehrere
Anlaufe zur Änderung oder Streichung der Strafnorm abgelehnt. Auch das
Parlament liegt in dieser Frage auf der Linie des Bundesrats. (for)
“Im Namen der Gerechtigkeit”
Wer den Volkermord an den Armeniern von 1915 in Abrede stellt, soll in
Frankreich mit Gefangnis oder Busse bestraft werden. Das umstrittene Gesetz
muss nach dem Ja der Nationalversammlung noch vom Senat genehmigt werden.
“Im Namen der Gerechtigkeit, der Ehre und des politischen Mutes” forderte
gestern der sozialistische Antragsteller Rene Rouquet seine
Parlamentskollegen auf, fur das Gesetz zu stimmen, das die Leugnung des
Armenier-Volkermords zu einem Delikt erklart. Fur Rouquet ist die
Strafandrohung nur logisch. Am 29. Januar 2001 hatte namlich das
franzosische Parlament einstimmig den Genozidcharakter der Massaker an der
armenischen Bevolkerung von 1915 bis 1917 anerkannt, denen laut (fast)
einhelliger Schatzung der Historiker mehr als eine Million Menschen zum
Opfer fielen.
Die Notwendigkeit, jeden strafrechtlich zu verfolgen, der diesen Volkermord
in Abrede stellt oder verharmlost, blieb indes umstritten. Im Mai hatte die
Nationalversammlung den Antrag der Opposition bereits debattiert, aus
Zeitgrunden wurde das Votum verschoben. Weniger offen ausgesprochen wurden
damals und auch jetzt eher opportunistische Rucksichten auf politische und
wirtschaftliche Interessen in der Turkei. Dieses Mal stimmte nach einer
kurzen Diskussion eine Mehrheit der anwesenden Abgeordneten (mit 106 Stimmen
gegen 19) dem Gesetzesantrag zu.
Gesetz noch nicht in Kraft
Die Regierungspartei UMP hatte beschlossen, an der Abstimmung nicht
teilzunehmen; trotzdem sprachen sich mehrere ihrer Volksvertreter fur das
Gesetz aus, unter ihnen auch der fruhere Minister und UMP-Abgeordnete
Patrick Devedjian, der selber armenischer Abstammung ist. Er versuchte, die
Tragweite des Parlamentsentscheids etwas abzuschwachen: Historiker und
Forscher sollten seiner Meinung nach von der Strafandrohung ausgenommen
werden. Sein Vorschlag wurde aber zuruckgewiesen. Auf der Zuhorertribune
begrussten Vertreter der armenischen Gemeinschaft, die in Frankreich rund
500 000 Menschen zahlt, das Abstimmungsergebnis erleichtert mit Applaus.
Damit ist diese Gesetzesvorlage aber noch nicht in Kraft. Nun liegt es an
der Regierung, die Debatte zum gegebenen Zeitpunkt auf die Tagesordnung des
Senats, der zweiten Parlamentskammer, zu setzen. Und nichts deutet darauf
hin, dass sie es dabei besonders eilig hat. Ohne die turkischen Einwande und
Drohungen zu erwahnen, hatte bei der gestrigen Debatte Europaministerin
Catherine Colonna die Skepsis der Regierung zum Ausdruck gebracht: “Es ist
Aufgabe der Historiker und nicht des Gesetzgebers, die Geschichte zu
schreiben.” Die Linke warf der Regierung vor, sie beuge sich den Pressionen
aus Ankara. Die Turkei droht Frankreich mit wirtschaftlichen
Vergeltungsmassnahmen. Laut turkischen Zeitungen konnten sich die Einbussen
fur die franzosischen Unternehmen auf 20 Milliarden Dollar belaufen, wenn
sie systematisch bei Vertragen ausgeschlossen wurden.
Kritisch hatten sich die meisten franzosischen Zeitungen zum Thema
geaussert. “Le Figaro” halt die Debatte fur zwecklos und riskant: “Die
(Leugnung) ist in Frankreich nicht so verbreitet, dass es unbedingt ein
Gesetz dafur braucht. Da gabe es andere Angelegenheiten, die mit grosserer
Dringlichkeit dem weisen Schluss unserer Abgeordneten zu unterbreiten waren.
Die politische Ausschlachtung der Schrecken, welche das armenische Volk
erlitten hat, kann nur kontraproduktiv sein. (…) Frankreich ist gross,
wenn es als Botschafter des Friedens und der Zivilisation auftritt, aber
lacherlich, wenn es sich als Staatsanwalt aufspielt.”
“Unnotige Polemik”
Als “unnotige Polemik” hatte Staatsprasident Jacques Chirac die
Kriminalisierung der Volkermordleugnung bezeichnet. Noch Ende September
hatte er bei seinem Besuch in Armenien die offizielle Anerkennung des
Armenier-Genozids durch den turkischen Staat zu einer Voraussetzung fur
einen eventuellen EU-Beitritt der Turkei erklart.
Fur Genozid braucht es Absicht
Den Tatbestand des Volkermords (Genozid) gibt es im Volkerrecht seit
Dezember 1948, als die Vereinten Nationen die “Konvention uber die Verhutung
und Bestrafung des Volkermords” verabschiedeten. Die Konvention, die 1951 in
Kraft trat, entstand in erster Linie als Reaktion auf den Holocaust unter
den Nazis im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Sie beschreibt Volkermord als Handlungen,
die in der expliziten Absicht begangen werden, eine nationale, ethnische,
rassische oder religiose Gruppe ganz oder teilweise zu zerstoren.
An diesem Punkt setzt die Kritik der Turkei an. Sie sieht die Massaker an
den Armeniern und die Todesmarsche nicht als bewusst rassistisch motivierte
Gewalt, sondern als Folge kriegerischer Ereignisse. Die meisten
internationalen Historiker und Juristen argumentieren indes, dies sei
unerheblich; die Armenier seien getotet worden, weil sie eben dieser
Volksgruppe angehorten. Ob Rassenwahn wie bei den Nazis oder andere Motive
die Graueltaten ausgelost hatten, spiele letztlich keine Rolle. (lkr)
Der Bund, Birgit Cerha, Beirut [13.10.06]
–Boundary_(ID_xyUwXjk142Qx56ogPJwd8Q) —
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ZNet | Activism
The Dark Side of Democracy
An Interview with Michael Mann
by Michael Mann and Khatchig Mouradian; October 18, 2006
temID=11222
Michael Mann is a British-born sociology professor of at the University of
California at Los Angeles (UCLA). He was a reader in sociology at the London
School of Economics and Sociology from 1977 to 1987 and received his PhD in
Sociology from Oxford University. He is the author of The Sources of Social
Power (Cambridge, 1986, 1993), Fascists (Cambridge, 2004), and The Dark Side
of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing (Cambridge, 2005).
The latter has been widely reviewed and praised as a “groundbreaking” work
in genocide studies. It attempts to explain the worst manifestations of evil
in human civilization through the study of a number of cases, including the
Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide.
We discuss some of the issues highlighted in The Dark Side of Democracy in
the following interview conducted by phone, from Beirut.
Khatchig Mouradian: In the preface of your book The Dark Side of Democracy,
you write: “Evil does not arrive from outside of our civilization, from a
separate realm we are tempted to call ‘primitive.’ Evil is generated by
civilization itself.” Can you explain?
Michael Mann: Each civilization creates new problems for human beings.
Sometimes, man succeeds in coping with these problems with a fair degree of
humanity, and sometimes he doesn’t. There is a tendency to say that ethnic
cleansing and genocide are committed by “aliens.” In fact, perpetrators of
such atrocities are dealing with the same problems that our own [Western]
civilization dealt with earlier, and sometimes with equally disastrous
outcomes. So it makes it easier for us to understand the Nazis and the Young
Turks, if we understand that the problems they failed to deal with are
problems that confront human civilization as a whole.
K.M.: You say, “Now, the epicenter of ethnic cleansing has moved to the
south of the world. Unless Humanity takes evasive action, it will continue
to spread until democracies-hopefully not ethnically cleansed ones-rule
the world.” Is the situation in Darfur and in Africa, in general, a
reflection of this shift?
M.M.: The notion of a people ruling themselves becomes potentially
problematic when more than one ethnic group generates a claims over shared
territory. Africa is very multi-ethnic, and it has to cope with that. The
problem areas there tend to be where there are two great factions. In Sudan,
for example, there are two visions, by Arabs and Africans, and claims over
land have pitted them against one another. In Rwanda, there were only two
significant ethnic groups-the Hutus and the Tutsis-and the ethnic rivalry
underlay the genocide.
K.M.: You have titled the book “The Dark Side of Democracy.” Murderous
ethnic cleansing, however, is rarely committed by established democracies,
as you and others have pointed out. Rather, the “danger zone” seems to be
during the transition phase from a non-democratic regime to a democratic
one. It is during the transition stage that different ethnic groups haven’t
yet resolved their issues, and that allows for situations where ethnic
cleansing could occur. Do you think Iraq is facing the perils of this
“transition phase” today?
M.M.: You are quite right. The problem is more during the transition period.
Once democracy is established, there is a decline in ethnic cleansing. I
think Iraq is a very good example of what I write about. Just to have
elections in a bi- or tri-ethnic context like Iraq almost guarantees that
the Shiites will vote for certain parties, and the Sunnis and Kurds for
other parties. The U.S. has introduced elections and the outcome is
disastrous. It has increased the polarization of the country and it might
end up with ethnic cleansing.
Genocide and democracies are logically incompatible. What I am pointing to
is the process of democratization, during which ideas can be perverted. You
can see this in the careers of the perpetrators themselves. When they began
the process of constitutional transformation, the Young Turks were in
alliance with the Armenian nationalists of the time. But then, in the course
of events, ideas become perverted. I don’t think democracies are perfect,
but the problem is the process of democratization. In multi-ethnic
situations, where there is an aspiration for democracy after the fall of an
empire, we have the kind of circumstance that can lead to ethnic cleansing
and genocide. Democracy gives the perpetrators a notion of ideals. They
characteristically think they are doing it for a purpose.
K.M.: Many genocide scholars argue that war is one of the major contributing
factors to the manifestation of genocidal intent. What’s your take on that?
M.M.: War brings forth radicals. These extreme cases normally require
turbulent geopolitical situations and also war. I don’t really think there
would have been the Genocide of the Armenians in the absence of the cover of
WWI. Of course, this does not mean that no atrocities were committed against
the Armenians before WWI. The pressures of war created the context, which is
also the case in Rwanda and in Sudan. I do not think ethnic cleansing is a
common feature, but it is a persistent feature.
K.M.: You write: “I’m not attempting to morally blur good and evil. In the
real world, they are connected.” How do you explain this connection?
M.M.: The main point of that quote is, first, to cast doubt on the notion of
collective responsibility-that is, on the notion that all Turks were
responsible for the Armenian Genocide or that all Germans were responsible
for the Holocaust.
Secondly, I try to cast doubt on the issue of intentionality from the very
beginning. In my account, perpetrators escalate their plans for the
repression or elimination of the ethnic enemy in response to frustrations
over earlier plans. They don’t have the intention of murdering everyone
from the very beginning.
I also explain that all ethnic groups are capable of committing atrocities.
Jews were the victims of the Holocaust, but Israel treats Palestinians in
ways that somewhat resembles the Nazis. I’m not accusing Israel of
committing genocide, of course. I ask myself, if I had been a professor of
sociology in Germany in the 1920s or early 1930s, could I have been a Nazi?
K.M.: This is where the issue of bystanders comes in. It is never easy to
say which side of human nature dominates in situations where genocide is
taking place, and how Turks in the Ottoman Empire, for example, reacted to
orders to deport and kill the Armenians.
M.M.: That’s right. This is the most difficult part of explaining, because
our evidence is never wonderful. I cite a variety of motives among the
perpetrators. Some of them are rather mundane: greed and obedience to
authority are obvious motives. In these situations, comradeship becomes an
important factor, as well. Also, we all have prejudices, which can be
intensified in conflict situations. Of course, during genocide, the number
of people in the dominant group that engage in the killing is nowhere near a
majority. So, the guilt of most Turks was that of being bystanders, of just
watching the Armenians march past them to their death.
K.M.: You are reluctant to use the term “genocide” when referring to some
cases of ethnic cleansing. One such case is Cambodia. How do you view the
problem of defining genocide?
M.M.: I do use quite a restrictive definition of genocide, and I wouldn’t
apply it to most of the Communist cases. People have accused me of
minimizing the Communist atrocities because I don’t use the word
“genocide.” But I am not in any way minimizing the number of people that
were killed. I am just saying that it wasn’t ethnically targeted. I think
the term “genocide” has been used too broadly in recent years. I don’t
think Yugoslavia was genocide. For me, genocide is the attempt to annihilate
an entire ethnic group. The UN definition allows for a “partial”
destruction of an ethnic group. I think one needs another term when the main
point is to expel a group from a certain territory. That isn’t quite as
abominable as trying to wipe out an entire ethnic group.
K.M.: Genocide deniers, when referring to the Armenian, Jewish or other
cases, argue that the victims provoked the killings. Genocide scholars,
however, have pointed out that in most major cases of genocide, the
“provocation” is insignificant, and that there comes a point where
genocide is inevitable, even without provocation. How do you view this
so-called “provocation thesis?”
M.M.: I think the latter comes closest to being true with the Holocaust: The
Jews did virtually nothing to provoke the Germans. I agree with the argument
by and large, but the concept of provocation also has to be viewed in the
full context of the situation. It’s not just a question of whether the
Armenians did anything directly against Turks to provoke them; one has to
take account Russia, the war, the activities of a few Armenian nationalist
groups. As I say this, I am in no way approving the perspective of the
perpetrator. But I am trying to understand it. The Armenians did not
directly provoke the Turks, and even if very few Armenians were involved in
some sort of “provocation,” the [Turkish] attack was not on the provokers,
but on the whole ethnic group.
K.M.: In a footnote in one of your chapters dealing with the Armenian
Genocide, you say: “We lack frank accounts from Turks. We know more about
the victims, which must bias us toward Armenian views of events. As long as
Turkish governments continue to deny genocide, as long as Turkish archives
remain largely closed, and as long as most Turkish accounts remain
implausible, this bias will continue. Only Turkey is harmed by this.” Can
you elaborate?
M.M.: We know very few mitigating circumstances. The picture is unreservedly
bleak. In the case of the Holocaust, we do know that there were Nazis who
opposed it. In the case of the Armenian Genocide, we only have a few memoirs
indicating that there were some differences among the Young Turks. The
opening of the archives and the end of the denial campaign in Turkey would
enable us to know more about the different attitudes among Turks during the
Genocide. There are obviously many Turks who helped Armenians. The execution
of the Genocide was decentralized and there must have been different
outcomes in different parts of the country. And apart from everything else,
it is unhealthy to regard Turks in general as being equally responsible for
the Genocide of the Armenians. However, until the archives are opened and
there is an honest acknowledgement of history, many people won’t be able to
fully get beyond such stereotypes.
K.M.: In recent years, more and more Turkish scholars are coming forth and
trying to question the Turkish state’s denialist policy.
M.M.: That is one of the healthiest things in the last few years. These
scholars are pushing hard for every inch. But still, there is a long way to
go.
K.M.: You conclude your chapters on the Armenian Genocide with the following
extremely powerful words depicting the “organic” connection between the
past and the present: “[The Young Turks] erred, not only morally, but also
factually. Armenians did not constitute such a threat, and their elimination
weakened the Ottoman war effort. Genocide contributed to defeat. The leaders
then fled into exile, where they fell to the bullets of Armenian assassins.
They might claim that the genocide was a long-term success, since the
disappearance of the Armenians made it easier after the war to unite and
centralize Turkey. Yet the country remains bedeviled by two Young Turk
legacies: military authoritarianism and an organized nationalism that now
represses Kurds rather than Armenians. The Young Turks fatally weakened
their country by pursuing organic nationalism; their successors struggle in
their shadow.” Let us conclude this interview by your thoughts on these
words.
M.M.: First, let me explain what I mean when I say that “genocide
contributed to defeat.” Of course, the Genocide was not the direct reason
for their defeat. But if there were a few thousand Armenians fighting with
the Russians, there were also hundreds of thousands of them in the Turkish
army, and there was no indication they would have changed sides. Killing
these Armenians is something that weakened the war effort. Also, the
deportations and the massacres demanded a lot of resources. What I mean when
I say that “their successors struggle in their shadow,” is that the
Genocide intensified the authoritarian nature and the “closedness” of the
Turkish Republic; generated a feeling of common guilt or shame; and created
and continues to create a lot of problems within Turkish society. Had the
Armenians survived, there would have been a better way of dealing with
ethnic minorities, especially Kurds. I think that Kurds suffered enormously
from the Armenian Genocide.
Khatchig Mouradian is a Lebanese-Armenian writer, translator, and
journalist. He is an editor of the daily newspaper Aztag, published in
Beirut. He can be contacted at [email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2006 Arpa International Film Festival
2919 Maxwell St.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Contact: [email protected]
Phone/Fax (323) 663-1882
ARPA FILM FESTIVAL HONORS DOCUMENTARIAN DR. J. MICHAEL HAGOPIAN
Hollywood, CA – The 2006 Arpa International Film
Festival will honor 93 year-old Emmy-nominated filmmaker and Thousand
Oaks resident, Dr. J. Michael Hagopian. Arpa will present him with
the Armin T. Wegner Award for his trilogy of films about the Armenian
Genocide, Witnesses.
Filmmaker Carla Garapedian (director of 2006’s
“Screamers” about System of a Down) will present Dr. Hagopian with
a lifetime achievement award for his 6 decade-long career in cinema.
Founded in 1995, the Arpa Foundation for Film, Music and
Art (AFFMA) was formed for the purpose of promoting the arts and
enhancing the cultural environment of the community, especially
providing support to filmmakers exploring subjects of social and
cultural importance through their medium. “Dr. Hagopian has
dedicated his life to exploring diaspora, multi-culturalism, exile,
war and global empathy through the medium of film,” says 2006 Arpa
Festival director Alex Kalognomos. “He’s made over 70 films (please
see filmography) that have created social understanding among people
all over the world. And at age 93, he’s still got an active
production slate for 2007. Dr. Hagopian’s vision is always set on
the future. And that makes our future a better place to be.”
Arpa is also presenting a retrospective of Dr.
Hagopian’s “Germany and the Secret Genocide” on Thursday, October
26, 2006 at the historic Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood (6712
Hollywood Blvd.)
Tickets are $11 for the Dr. Hagopian retrospective of
“Germany and the Secret Genocide.” To attend the Arpa Awards
Banquet honoring Dr. J. Michael Hagopian on Friday, October 27 please
visit or call (323) 663-1882 for more information. END
Dr. J. Michael Hagopian
Filmography (Partial List)
Africa is my Home
African Girl…Malobi
Ali and his Baby Camel
The American Indian in Transition
Ancient Phoenicia
Apryl and her Baby Lamb
The Arab-Israeli Conflict
Ararat Beckons
The Armenian Case
Armenian Genocide
Art of Traditional Armenian Cooking
Asian Earth
As Long as the Grass is Green
California Armenian: The First Generation
Cilicia…Rebirth in Aleppo
Caravans Along the Euphrates (forthcoming)
The Forgotten Genocide
>From Bitlis to Fresno: The Karabian Family saga
Germany and the Secret Genocide
Henry…Boy of the Barrio
Himalaya…Life on the Roof of the World
Hindu Village Boy
Historical Armenia
History of Southern California (Part I & II)
How to do Research
How Vast is Space
If Kangaroos Jump, Why Can’t you?
India and her Food Problem
Israel…Its History and People
Israel…Nation of Destiny
Jerusalem and its Contributions
Jerusalem…Center of Many worlds
Legacy
Mandate from Armenia
Mexican or American
A Mexican-American Family
Mountain Community of the Himalayas
Museum…Gateway to Perception
The Native Land
Negro Heroes from American History
Negro Kingdoms of Africa’s Golden Age
Nigeria…Problems of Nation Building
Noise Not sound
Problems of the Middle East
Ricky’s Great Adventure
Seacoast Villages of Japan
Silkmaking in China
Strangers in a Promised Land
Tibetan Traders
To be Somebody
Voices from a Lake
Where are My People?
Winter on an Indian Reservation
[email protected]

PRESS OFFICE
Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern)
630 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Contact: Jake Goshert, Coordinator of Information Services
Tel: (212) 686-0710 Ext. 60; Fax: (212) 779-3558
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
October 19, 2006
___________________
GALA 40TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION OF HOLY TRINITY CHURCH IN CHELTENHAM, PA
By Florence Avakian
It was a celebration not of a church building, but of the effort to see the
sanctuary built. It was a celebration of generations past who gave of their
time and effort to see a church blossom in their neighborhood.
“On this 40th anniversary of the Holy Trinity Church, we celebrate not only
this beautiful place, but more so, its members — those before us and those
yet to come. This church is living and breathing, and is surely eternal,”
said Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, Primate of the Diocese of the Armenian
Church of America (Eastern), during festivities marking the anniversary of
the Church of the Holy Trinity of Cheltenham, PA.
The 40th anniversary of the consecration of the Holy Trinity Armenian Church
began with the Holy Badarak celebrated by the Primate on September 24, 2006.
During his inspiring sermon, in which he addressed the youth directly, he
likened them to Christ’s Disciples, who he had sent into the world to spread
the Gospel.
HONORING THE PAST
As the more than 250 parishioners and guests filed the church auditorium for
the gala banquet, a power point presentation took place detailing the
church’s history and the many individuals who played a crucial role in its
development.
It was in 1966 that the church was consecrated by then-Primate Bishop Torkom
Manoogian. It was the first time that a Primate who had been the former
pastor of a community returned to consecrate a newly built sanctuary.
In remarks during the banquet, the church’s current pastor, Fr. Tateos
Abdalian, poetically paid tribute to the founding fathers of the church,
“the visionaries of 40 years ago, who after facing trial and tribulations,
disappointments and hardship, had the courage to be like a small mountain
stream creating great rivers, like the small grain of corn waiting to sprout
to build again our Holy Trinity Church.”
This theme was echoed by the recipient of the Dr. Albert Keshgegian, who was
presented with the St. Vartan Award during the banquet. Dr. Keshgegian has
found time in his busy schedule to serve, with dedication, his church as a
deacon, choir member, chairman of the ACYOA, Diocesan delegate, Sunday
School teacher, and parish council member. A biochemist employed in the
department of pathology at Main Line Hospitals, has also written several
books on meditation and lectured on various religious topics.
“Use your talents for their church, be it in writing, singing, making the
best pilaf, or even fixing a broken window. Listen to God’s voice within
you and follow it,” Dr. Keshgegian told those gathered at the anniversary
banquet. “And what you end up accomplishing may be something far greater
than what you had ever though could be.”
CELEBRATING THE FUTURE
In his remarks, the Primate recalled the recent Diocesan Assembly and
reiterated the Diocesan theme for the year: “Church and Home: One in
Spirit.” He said this focus showed it was necessary to deepen our
understanding of the Armenian Church.
“We cannot be Armenian Christians on Sunday, and something else on Monday,”
he said. “We are obligated to exhibit a constancy of faith before our
children, before our families, before our communities, and even beyond.”
“The Gospels remind us that a candle placed under a bushel sheds no light,”
he continued. “The purpose of carrying the Armenian flame is to stand in
its revealing light. My hope and prayer for you is that you find
inspiration in this celebration today, to carry the flame of our faith and
heritage, holding it higher, walking taller, than those who came before us.”
It was a fitting message to a community celebrating its 40th anniversary,
urging today’s young Armenians to build upon the successes of those who came
before, those who built the Holy Trinity Church.
And, Fr. Tateos said, being involved in the Armenian Church in America
unites two strong identities, both of which are wonderful to embrace.
“My family was American and proud of everything that this country stood for.
But we were Armenians, and we never forgot our faith, our heritage, our
ancestry, our language, not as a museum curator, but as a living testimony
to the spirit of our people, a spirit that had been passed from generation
to generation for three millennia,” he said.
The Primate expressed appreciation for Fr. Abdalian’s devotion and his
“never-ending labor, steadfast leadership, commitment to this church, the
community, and to our faith. This church has every right to be proud for
its accomplishments and successes — your youth, the educational programs,
your outreach ministry, and much more.”
— 10/18/06
E-mail photos available on request. Photos also viewable in the News and
Events section of the Eastern Diocese’s website,
PHOTO CAPTION (1): Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, Primate of the Eastern
Diocese, celebrates the badarak during on September 24, 2006, marking the
40th anniversary of the Church of the Holy Trinity in Cheltenham, PA.
PHOTO CAPTION (2): Archbishop Barsamian and Fr. Tateos Abdalian, pastor of
the Church of the Holy Trinity, present Dr. Albert Keshgegian with the St.
Vartan Award during the program celebrating the 40th anniversary of the
parish.
PHOTO CAPTION (3): Members of the Akhtamar Dance Group perform during the
40th anniversary celebration of the Church of the Holy Trinity in
Cheltenham, PA, on September 24, 2006.
PHOTO CAPTION (4): Peter Hovnanian, who served as master of ceremonies
during the banquet marking the 40th anniversary of the Church of the Holy
Trinity in Cheltenham, PA, leads a toast to the parish’s future on September
24, 2006.
# # #