ARMENIAN AND AZERI FMS TO MEET IN STRASBOURG
PanARMENIAN.Net
15.05.2006 15:38 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ May 18-19 Armenian and Azeri FMs will meet with OSCE
MG co-chairs in Strasbourg. In the words of Azeri FM Elmar Mammadyarov,
the co-chairs have new ideas on Karabakh settlement. “After discussions
at the meeting it will be clear whether talks between the Presidents
are necessary. There are some new, really interesting ideas that we
are working over, analyze, however some of these we cannot accept,”
he remarked. In his turn former acting President of Azerbaijan Yagub
Mammadov believe the meeting and attaining a specific practical peace
accord between Robert Kocharian and Ilham Aliyev before the summer
depends on the decision that the Ministers will take first of all,
writes Ekho newspaper.

ABRAHAM RETAINED HIS TITLE
A1+
[12:46 pm] 15 May, 2006
Middleweight professional Armenian boxer Arthur Abraham (20-0, 17
KOs) representing Germany celebrated another win in the professional
ring retaining his title of IBF World Champion. In the fight against
Kofi Jantuah (30-2, 19 KOs) from Ghana at the Stadthalle in Zwickau,
Germany Arthur celebrating a convincing win.
Scores of the last three rounds were 115-112, 116-111, 117-109.
By the way, Referee Robert Byrd took a point from Abraham by mistake
at the end of the seventh for a punch that clearly landed on Jantuah’s
ear, not behind the head.
This was the second time this year that Arthur Abraham retained his
title. Let us remind you that on Marc 4 Arthur beat Shannon Taylor.

AZERBAIJAN HAS GOT THE RIGHT TO ASSESS DEMOCRACY IN ARMENIA
PanARMENIAN.Net
12.05.2006 GMT+04:00
International remedial organizations suppose that the membership
of Azerbaijan in the UN Human Rights Council is discrediting for
that organ.
The UN Human Rights Council consisting of 47 states was formed by the
results of three-round elections held in New York. As it is known,
Armenia was among those 18 states, which did not collect enough
scores, whereas Azerbaijan was elected, though with difficulty. This
means that from now on Baku leaders will have the right to evaluate
democracy level in countries where things with human rights are much
better than in Azerbaijan itself.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Azerbaijan did not pass in the first round. In
the second round 103 states out of 198 voted for that country. Thus,
Azerbaijan received three votes more than the required minimum. Armenia
lacked just a few votes. According to the ballot, held after the
end of elections, Azerbaijan will be present in the Council for 3
years whereas other countries, like Poland or the Check Republic –
for only a year. Did Armenia lose much failing in the elections
and not getting in the Human Rights Council? It is worth mentioning
that the UN Council for Human Rights has inherited almost all of the
authority, which the Geneva Commission for Human Rights had before
being liquidated on June 16, 2005 at the insistence of the United
States and other Western countries. The main complaint against the
Commission consisted in the fact that its member countries where
far away from democracy. The “cosmetic” reform, which simply changed
the name of the organ, did not however solve the main problem. And
now, countries that have a very vague idea about human rights, will
watch for the protection of human rights in the whole world. The
newly created council will regularly analyze human rights reports in
certain countries and present its summary to the UN Security Council.
Armenia has twice been elected to the Human Rights Commission. It is
noteworthy that membership in the commission allowed to use certain
diplomatic mechanisms which sometimes were very useful. Countries
against which the world community has claims concerning human rights
protection, had to show special attention to Armenia in order to win
our support. Very often that support turned to be useful to such great
powers as China and Russia. Yerevan in its turn enjoyed Moscow’s and
Beijing’s favors. In this sense membership in the commission was really
very important. However the fact that this time Armenia was not elected
to the reformed UN organ is not a tragedy at all. Moreover, Yerevan was
actually ready for possible undesirable results. Finally, it would be
really unfair if Armenia was included in the organ three times in a row
especially because from now on elections are held by the principle of
regional representation. In the Western European region there are many
countries, which have never been in the Commission. Everything would
be normal if not the news about Azerbaijan’s election to the Council…
The membership of Azerbaijan in the Human Rights Council is of course
undesirable for Armenia. Though decisions of that organ are not
obligatory, the very fact that Azerbaijan will be assessing state of
affairs in Armenia is annoying. It is quite clear that Azerbaijan will
not be objective. But in this case more important is the question –
do Baku leaders have the moral right to evaluate democracy in other
countries when in Azerbaijan the situation with human rights is just
deplorable? International remedial organizations give an unambiguously
negative answer.
Yet before voting the respectable international “Human Rights Watch”
organization published the list of countries whose membership in the
Council was fully inadmissible. In that list Azerbaijan was the first
not only because of the alphabetic order. Azerbaijan is followed by
China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia. Armenia is of
course not included in the list. Thought the leaders of “Human Rights
Watch” do not think that in our country things with democracy are
ideal, they saw Armenia as a member state of the Human Rights Council.
Displeasure with election results has been expressed also
by another influential remedial organization, called “Amnesty
International”. Leaders of this organization underlined that among
member states of the Council there are those where the situation of
human rights is simply catastrophic. Leaders of Moscow Helsinki group
announced that in the current composition the Council loses its sense
since it is initially discredited by the membership of Russia, China,
Azerbaijan and Pakistan. The United States are also indignant at the
election results and have even refused to support the Council since the
mechanism of its formation has allowed involvement of such countries
like Azerbaijan. At the same time, the Ombudsman of Azerbaijan Elmira
Suleymanova dares to say that election of Azerbaijan to the Council
is the appreciation of high level of democracy in Azerbaijan by the
UN. Can we call this anything else but complete nonsense?
“PanARMENIAN.Net” analytical department

“EUROVISION” BECAME REASON FOR ANGER
A1+
[12:09 pm] 15 May, 2006
The website has been created to support
Andre, the representative of Armenia in the music competition
“Eurovision-2006”. Let us remind you that the previous website of
Andre was subjected to the attack of Azeri hackers.
The website will make it possible to get acquainted with the activity
of the singer and with the materials concerning the competition,
as well as to vote for Andre.
In the meantime, problems have arisen in Greece where Andre represented
his song.
“A1+” received a letter from the Greek information agency “Hayastan”
which on behalf of part of the Armenian community living in
Greece complains of the activity of Vahram Kazhoyan, RA Ambassador
extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Greece. According to the agency,
“because of him the Armenians in Greece live in a tense atmosphere.”
The letter explains that the reason of the tense atmosphere is
that with the support of Ambassador Kazhoyan Andre participates
only in events held for the members of the Dashnaktsutyun (Armenian
Revolutionary Federation) party.
“The singer is practically isolated from the local Armenian community
and all its cultural and educational centers with the exception of
those which operate under the sponsorship of the Dashnaktsutyun,”
the letter says. “The two cases which caused much indignation were
the following. On May 14 the Armenian Embassy organized a concert for
the Armenian community with the participation of Andre and a number of
singers from Armenia at which only the members of the Dashnaktsutyun
party were allowed to be present. The second case was that Andre did
not visit the ‘Galpaqyan’ college of the AGBU, whereas he visited the
schools operating under the sponsorship of the Dashnaktsutyun party.”
According to several sources the staff of the Armenian Embassy in
Greece is also displeased with the attitude of Ambassador Kazhoyan
which causes problems in the Armenian community.

A-320 RECORD BOXES WILL BE RAISED TOMORROW
A1+
[02:53 pm] 15 May, 2006
The works of raising the record boxes of the Armenian plane A-320
will start tomorrow, on May 16. Today the whole equipment necessary
for the work is being prepared in Sochi. The process will last about
2-3 days. The rest will depend on the weather conditions.
It is presumed that the record boxes are 496 meters deep under the
water, five meters far from each other.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NO ARMENIANS THIS TIME
A1+
[03:30 pm] 15 May, 2006
For the last few years human trafficking has been developing
in Sweden. This time fortunately there are not Armenian
victims. Journalist Stephen Lisinski who highlights juridical issues
informed the correspondent of “A1+” in Kalmar that during his yearlong
activity he has not come across crimes connected with Armenians.
His last investigations were connected with the murder of Anna Link,
the Swedish Foreign Minister and the disappearance of 104 Chinese
children. “These children were victims of trafficking. They arrived
in Sweden from Beijing, with false passports. This is organized crime
and the organizers took into account the fact the in contrast to
other European countries Sweden has a more relaxed attitude towards
teenagers. They are not locked, and if they have a Schengen visa,
they can travel freely.”
Two Chinese citizens of Sweden have been arrested with the accusation
of selling the children, but only seven of the 104 children have been
found by now. Stephen Lisinski is convinced that the children have
either been forced to engage in prostitution or killed in order to
sell their organs. He did not give further details as the preliminary
investigation is still under way and the facts cannot be considered
official.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

BILL ON SUPPORT TO SOUTH CAUCASUS STATES INTRODUCED BEFORE US SENATE
PanARMENIAN.Net
15.05.2006 14:45 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ A bill on support to states of the South Caucasus and
Central Asia for ensuring US national security interests, containing
Russia’s geopolitical ambition, as well as creation and support to a
network of US military bases is introduced before the US Senate. Bill
co-sponsor, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) stated that US vital interests
in the Caspian region include ensuring independence and security of
Azerbaijan and Georgia. Extremely important pipelines of oil and gas
transit pass through those countries.
US also has to restrain Iran, provide access to oil and gas reserves,
secure good relations with Kazakhstan, promote peaceful settlement
of conflict and contain Russia’s geopolitical ambition,” Brownback
believes. The bill concerns Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Armenia,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ON THE TRAIL OF RELIGIOUS ARTIFACTS AND A GRAND OLD MAN
Katia M. Peltekian
ment/20060424_EngSupl.htm
Apr 24 2006
With this special supplement, Aztag presents part of the Armenian
history to which not much importance is given as that given to the
Genocide. The massacres committed by Ottoman Turkey towards the end
of the 19th century in Eastern Anatolia and Constantinople were as
atrocious as those that were perpetrated against innocent Armenians
during World War One. Especially between 1894 and 1896, Armenians
suffered massacre and plunder as Ottoman Turkey’s allies in Europe
watched.
During this period, Armenians presented religious artifacts in
gratitude to those European statesmen who tried to help alleviate the
suffering of the Armenians. In fact, Armenians living in the British
Empire and elsewhere honored a British Prime Minister for defending
the Armenian cause whether in the Parliament or at gatherings in
different cities around Great Britain. William E.
Gladstone was well-known for his speeches demanding that the British
government, a staunch ally of the Ottoman Empire, do something to
help the Armenians and asking the British people to donate what they
could to help the survivors.
The chalice and stained-glass window in an old church in Wales are
not a new discovery. A few Armenians have surely seen these artifacts
that are well-preserved to this day. However, these objects and the
reasons they were presented specifically to the church of St. Dieniol
have not been given much attention.
With this supplement, we hope that similar items, surely existing
elsewhere around the world, would be brought to the attention of the
Armenians to enrich their knowledge of the tragic history.
Buried in the basement of an archives library, I sit at a small cubicle
and read on microfilm late 19th century British newspapers. In the
darkness, there is only the light of the microfilm-reading machine
flashing in my face.
Like a slide show, the pages move one after the other as I skim through
the page, and try to locate yet another report or a letter describing
the suffering of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Persecution and
pillage, plunder and outright mass-murder are frequently described
by correspondents, travelers and sometimes consuls. Titles read
“Massacre in Sassoun”, or those of Urfa, Zeitoun, Van, Egin, Tokat,
Constantinople, etc. Headlines as “The Armenian Question”, and “The
Armenian Massacres” are repeated over and over again. And then there
is news of a young Armenian girl arrested as spy, or the story of
Armenian girls in Turkish harems. The list never stops.
The silver-gilt chalice presented by a deputation of Armenians from
London and Paris to Hawarden Church in 1894. It is used during mass
to this day.
Then there are the transcripts of the British House of Lords and House
of Commons as lords and members of the parliament raise the question
of what Her Majesty’s government is doing to alleviate the sufferings
of the Armenians. In most cases, there are no concrete answers from
the foreign office. The British government, an ally of the Turkish
Empire, was unable to provide answers.
In most cases, the Foreign Office would report that a commission
was formed or that it was waiting for a report from their consul and
which never seemed to arrive.
And as I read column after column of nothing but doom and hopelessness,
suffering and horrible massacre in different towns and villages in the
Armenian provinces, an interesting article in December 1894 catches
my attention. It describes a ceremony which takes place at a church
in a town called Hawarden. A deputation of Armenian gentlemen from
London and Paris arrive at Hawarden to present a silver-gilt chalice
to the parish as a memorial to Mr. William Gladstone’s “sympathy with
and assistance to the Armenian people.”
According to the newspapers, the delegation from Paris desired to
place in Hawarden Church a silver chalice as a perpetual memorial in
recognition of the great life, work, and sympathy of Gladstone, one of
the parishioners of Hawarden, whose voice and pen were used in sympathy
with the Armenian people in the interests of humanity and justice.
Mr. Gladstone humbly received the chalice thanking the delegation
for the beautiful object and gave a speech about the reasons he had
shown interest in the Armenian people and their suffering. He went
on describing what he called ” a state of horrible and indescribable
outrage in Armenia.”
This piece of news becomes even more interesting when a similar
item appears in January 1897. This time members of the Council of the
Anglo-Armenian Association presented to the same church a stained-glass
window commemorating the Armenian martyrs. The presentation was made
in “recognition of the very active interest which Mr. Gladstone had
taken in the cause of the Armenians.”
According to the newspaper, the idea of this memorial originated with
a wealthy Armenian living in Russia.
That same day was also the 85th birthday of Mrs. Gladstone, and the
delegation presented her with an oil painting depicting His Holiness
Meguerditch I, the supreme patriarch of the Armenians. It was painted
by M. Theodor Axentolviez, a professor at the Imperial Academy of
Art in Krakow. The portrait was a gift to Mrs. Gladstone from the
Armenians of India and the Straits Settlements.
For those who read Armenian history, the name Gladstone is
well-known. But for many Armenians, it is an unfamiliar name. Simply
put, he was the Prime Minister of Great Britain four times during
Queen Victoria’s reign.
This is when so many questions came to mind: Why would Armenians from
Russia, India, France and England honor this man? What had he done
for the Armenians? Why did the Armenians choose Hawarden Church? And
more importantly, do the silver chalice and window still exist? Have
they survived the 110 years since their presentation to the church?
Then, I started entertaining the idea of visiting Hawarden. But where
is Hawarden? Through a quick search on the internet, I located Hawarden
as a small town in the north of Wales on the border with England;
it is quite a long way from London. But I needed to make sure the
window still exists before making the long trip.
An email to Welsh MP Eilian Williams of the Wales-Armenia Solidarity
group confirmed that the window exists. Mr. Williams further wrote:
William E. Gladstone
“The 94-96 massacres were much more publicised in the Welsh press
than the genocide, and a Wales-Armenia Society existed then. The
congregation of my chapel (in a small village in Snowdonia) raised
£6 in 1896 to help the Armenians.
It is also interesting that a saying persisted in the Welsh language
until recent times: I remember when I was small that if people wanted
to describe an evil look on someone they said ” Roedd o yn edrach
arnai fel Twrc” (” He looked at me just like a Turk”). It’s only in the
last 20 years that people have stopped using it. This saying must have
its origins in 1896 and the outrage felt across Wales at that time.”
My mind was made up: I was going to Hawarden! Last February while
visiting London, I went to the train station to buy my ticket, but
the ticket-seller had never heard of Hawarden before. I spelled it for
him. And on his computer, he found the fastest route to the village:
a four-hour trip that also included two train changes.
The first and longest leg of the trip to Liverpool was quite
comfortable in a brand new train ran by Virgin Company. The more
interesting were the shorter rides to Wales. The second ride took me
to a village called Bidstone where I had to wait around 25 minutes
for my next train to Hawarden. Bidstone train station was just a few
meters long platform in the middle of a field. It looked abandoned as
there was no one, not even a station manager. All I could see were the
train tracks cutting through the plains all the way to the horizon. On
the other side were a few remote houses in the open fields. Those 25
minutes seemed like 25 hours. And then my ride to Hawarden arrived –
a one-wagon old train that looked as if it was not cleaned or washed in
the past 10 years. This was turning into a very interesting adventure
for me.
I arrived in Hawarden with no map and no address. All I knew was
that I needed to go to St. Deiniol’s Church, but I could find no one
to help me with directions. I walked up the hill from the station,
and met two elderly ladies going into one house. I asked them how I
could get a taxi, and they looked strangely at me. One of them simply
said, “Love, this is such a small village, I don’t think you’d need a
Taxi.” Then they directed me to a few pubs which could be of help to
me. And just before I could ask them where St. Dieniol’s Church was,
they had disappeared and gone inside.
St. Deiniol’s Church at Hawarden, Wales The church was founded in the
6th century by a monk called Deiniol. He came to Hawarden in 547AD
after establishing churches along the Dee Valley in Wales. According
to tradition, Deiniol planted his preaching cross and prayed in the
shade of the tree, and at sunrise, on the line cast by the shadow of
the cross, he built his small church.
There is an unsubstantiated claim that a new church, of which a
small part only seems to survive was built in 1272. It is recorded as
“Ecclia de Haworthin” in 1291. During the following centuries, fire
and war had burned and destroyed parts of the Church which underwent
several alterations, restorations and repairs.
The stained-glass window at Hawarden Church depicting St. Bartholomew
on the left and St. Gregory the Illuminator on the right. It was
designed by Edward Frampton and presented by the Council of the
Anglo-Armenian Association to the Church in 1897.
Ok! How wise is it to go to a pub and ask about a church? I don’t know,
but no harm in trying. I continued walking and just across what could
have been the main road of this small town, I saw a Church steeple,
and thought if this is such a small town, they wouldn’t have more than
one church, would they? It isn’t strange in Britain that they have
about six or seven pubs in this town, but only one church. I walked
towards the church, and in the middle of the Welsh greenery, I walked
through the gates and was met with old graves that surrounded the
church. Some of the graves dated as far back as the 1700s and 1800s.
I turned the knob on the old wooden door and walked into the church. It
was quiet. There was no one inside. The stone walls of the church
had turned dark with age. The dim lights and the total silence in
the church made me shiver for a moment as I sensed a holy presence
inside these walls. I made the sign of the cross at the altar, and
whispered a short prayer. I looked around and there were several
stained-glass windows all around the church walls. So where is the
one the Armenians had donated? I walked around, stopping at each
stained-glass window reading the dedications. Most of them were made
of the bright colors of red, blue, green and yellow. They were very
similar to other stained-glass windows in other English and European
churches. Various members of the congregation had dedicated one window
or another in memory of beloved ones.
And then I stood in front of about two-meter long window that depicted
two figures adorned in ornate attires. The colors were different from
the rest.
The window was not as bright as the others. The intricate craftsmanship
was different from the other windows. Rather than large pieces of
colored glass, this had more detailed and minute pieces in shades
of olive green, burgundy, brown, earth colors welded together. The
details of the faces and the jewels of their crown and robes were
unique. I was elated to have found the church window, but at the same
time I wished it had not existed: it was a further reminder of the
atrocities that befell the Armenians in the late 19th century.
On the left stood the figure of St. Bartholomew and on the right that
of St.
Gregory the Illuminator. Above the two figures, the following
words were printed on the stained glass: “The noble army of martyrs
praise Thee”. At the foot of the window in the stone window sill were
carved the following words: “To the glory of God and in memory of the
Armenians in Turkey who have suffered for the faith, and in undying
gratitude for the inspiring example of William Ewart Gladstone this
window is dedicated by Arakel Zadouroff of Baku, Russia. A.D. 1897”
For about 15 minutes or so, I stood there and stared at the window. It
was on the east side of the church, and the sun had already moved
to the west. So the window looked dimmer. Still, the light from the
outside was enough to illuminate the colors and reveal the details. I
took photographs hoping they would also reflect the true beauty of
this stained glass.
And what about the silver chalice? It’s there also in the Church at
Hawarden. It is a beautifully crafted piece of artifact with intricate
engravings on the cup and the stem. Around the cup is an inscription
in Armenian written by the Supreme Patriarch. The chalice is a true
reflection of Armenian craftsmanship which has produced hundreds, if
not thousands, of religious artifacts throughout centuries. According
to the current churchwarden Fred Snowden, the chalice is used regularly
during mass communion to this day.
In 1897, Mr. Gladstone, upon receiving the chalice, gave a speech
describing it as “a beautiful article, a beautiful object” which he was
holding in his hand. He expressed his gratification that the Armenians
had taken notice in such a way as that which he was holding in his
hands. He added, “Anything more appropriate, anything more touching,
I could hardly conceive.”
Next to the church was the William Gladstone Library which included a
small museum dedicated to the great statesman. And in many instances,
with the drawings of one of Britain’s greatest Prime Ministers, one
would read the captions which included such phrases as “champion of
the Armenian Question” and ” his last great speech on Armenia”.
After taking numerous pictures at the church and its grounds,
I walked around Hawarden, went into a couple of the pubs and spoke
with some of the residents. It was amazing to find out that some of
the residents of this small village knew a little bit of Armenia’s
dark history. Perhaps the existence of the chalice and the window had
contributed to this knowledge, or the elderly had heard from their
parents about Gladstone’s efforts to help the Armenians. And perhaps
they were aware of the Armenian tragedy because of the recent debates
about the Armenian Genocide in the Welsh National Assembly. Whatever
the reason, it was somehow comforting to know that this crime against
humanity is not forgotten.
Who was Gladstone and what did he do for the Armenians William Ewart
Gladstone was born in Liverpool in 1809. By 1832, he became a member of
parliament in the British House of Commons, and held different posts
in the government. In 1839, he married Catherine Glynne of Hawarden
in Wales, and took up residence there for the rest of his life.
He became Prime Minister as leader of the Liberal Party for the
first time in 1868 and lost the election in 1874. Back as an MP,
Gladstone worked diligently for the Bulgarian cause to save Bulgaria
from Ottoman rule. In 1880, he became Prime Minister again and served
until 1885, but the next year, he was back in the Premiership only
to resign a few months later after his Home Rule Bill for Ireland
was defeated in the Parliament. In 1892, the Liberals won a majority
in the General Election and Gladstone became Prime Minister for the
fourth time. Two years later, he resigned but continued to sit as an
MP until he finally retired from Parliament in 1894.
Although he resigned from public office, he came out of retirement
several times to speak up for humanity and call for action. He mostly
advocated the independence of Greece and the rescue of the Armenians
from the Ottoman Turks.
According to biographers, he gave himself wholly to the cause of the
oppressed Armenians.
In 1894 Sultan Abdul Hamid, following his edict against religious
freedom, began the execution of his preconceived plan to force all
Christian Armenians to become Moslems or to die. The means used by
the soldiers were robbery, outrage and murder.
On December 17, 1894 a meeting was held in London during
which Gladstone strongly denounced the outrages committed by
the Turks. Several days later, on his 85th birthday, an Armenian
delegation from London and Paris took the occasion to present a
silver-gilt chalice to Hawarden Church as “a memorial of Mr.
Gladstone’s sympathy with and assistance to the Armenian
people.” Speaking to the deputation, he said that the Turks should
go out of Armenia “bag and baggage.” He called the government of
Sultan Abdul Hamid a disgrace to Prophet Mohammad, a disgrace to
civilization and “a curse to mankind.” He called all the civilized
nations to act on behalf of humanity and justice to save the Armenians
from the Turkish outrages.
As Turkey continued massacring the Armenians, a meeting was held
in Chester on August 6, 1895 to raise public sentiment against
the slaughter of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire by Turkish
soldiers. According to The Times, the Town Hall was crowded to excess
and many hundreds of persons had to be refused admission. Among those
present were the Duke and Duchess of Westminster, Mr. & Mrs. Gladstone
together with other British notables and clergymen. Also present
were delegates from the Anglo-Armenian Association (headed by its
president Mr. F.C. Stevenson, MP), the Armenian Relief Committee
and the Armenian Association of France (represented by the Chevalier
Mihranoff). The Armenians present at this meeting included Arch-Priest
Baronian of Manchester, Professor Garo Krakidian, Dr. Kurkjian and
several Armenian merchants. The aim of the meeting was to devise some
means to put an end to the crimes and to punish the Turkish oppressor.
The Duke of Westminster, presiding over the meeting, read a letter
from Mr.
James Bryce, MP, founder of the London Armenian Society. In the letter,
Bryce had stated that
Lord James Bryce
“The Armenian question was at this present moment in a most critical
phase.
Not only the existence of the Armenians in Armenia proper, whom it
was to be feared the Turks had resolved to exterminate if they were
permitted to do so, but the safety of the Christian population over
all the Turkish East, was at stake.”
Then the Duke of Westminster continued saying that there could be
no more serious and painful question than that of the Armenians,
those hundreds of thousands of absolutely helpless and defenseless
people. He added: “It was believed on good authority that a mass of
inoffensive and defenseless Christians of the appalling number of
10,000 – men, women, and children – were massacred, in many cases
after untold barbarities had been inflicted on them, and by whom? By
the so-called police and by the soldiers of the Sultan!”
Afterwards, Gladstone took the podium and delivered one of his most
forceful speeches denouncing the Turkish Sultan and the Ottoman
Government. His language was not exaggerated as he described the
horrible massacres and other crimes inflicted upon the innocent people,
quoting from an American eyewitness Dr. Dillon, who had traveled
in the devastated lands in disguise and written reports. Gladstone
also quoted from accounts witnessed by representatives of England,
France and Russia.
Gladstone held the Turkish Government responsible for all the
misdeeds inflicted upon the Christian Armenians by employing
the Kurds, the Turkish soldiers and the Turkish police. He added:
“And there seems to be a deadly competition among all these classes
which shall most prove itself as adept in the horrible and infernal
work that is before them. But above them, and more guilty than they,
are the higher officers of the Turkish Government.”
Although Mr. Gladstone did not recite the horrible accounts of the
eyewitnesses, he did illustrate a few cases in which those plunderers
would boast about their crimes asserting that they “shall not be
punished for plundering Armenians.”
Gladstone quoted one such example as recorded by Dr. Dillon. A Kurd by
the name of Montigo, who was under death sentence, boasted that the
Kurdish tribes attacked villages, killed people, burnt houses, took
money, carpets, sheep and women. Montigo confirmed that the Turkish
government had disarmed the Armenian population, but had sent out the
Sultan’s cavalry, the barbarians and savages from the hills. He said
that the Armenians could not fight back because they were unarmed
and knew more would come to kill them. According to this Kurdish
malefactor, “The Turks hate the Armenians and we do not. We only
want money and spoils, and some Kurds also want their lands, but the
Turks want their lives.” This same Kurd affirms that he was sentenced
to death not because of what he did to the Armenians. He added that
“If I be hanged it will be for attacking and robbing the Turkish post
and violating the wife of a Turkish colonel who is here in Erzeroum,
but not for Armenians. Who are they that I should suffer for them?”
During his speech, Mr. Gladstone offered a resolution that he believed
the whole of the nation and the British Government would support in
order to secure for the Armenians such reforms as would guarantee
the safety of life, honor, religion and property. Mr. Gladstone held
the Sultan responsible for the massacres and barbarities committed in
Sassoun. He summed up the situation in four words: “plunder, murder,
rape and torture.”
Then Mr. Gladstone cautioned the British Government and those of
the other powers against trusting the promises of the government at
Constantinople as he deemed them “absolutely and entirely worthless.”
He ended his speech by ascertaining that what the Turkish Government
was doing in Armenia, but not in Armenia exclusively, were founded
on “a deliberate determination to exterminate the Christians of
that Empire.”
In subsequent letters to similar audiences around Great Britain and
Europe, Mr. Gladstone denounced the Sultan for the Armenian massacres
and called him the “Great Assassin.” In one such letter to the French
Figaro in September 1896, he wrote: “For more than a year [the Sultan]
has triumphed over the diplomacy of the six Powers, they have been
laid prostrate at his feet. There is no parallel in history to the
humiliation they have patiently borne. He has therefore had every
encouragement to continue a course that has been crowned with such
success. The impending question seems to be, not whether, but when and
where he will proceed to his next murderous exploits. The question
for Europe and each Power is whether he shall be permitted to swell
by more myriads the tremendous total of his victims.”
In every piece of writing about Mr. Gladstone, there is the mention
of his last great speech which was on Armenia. This took place on
September 24, 1896 at the Hengler’s Circus Building in Liverpool. The
meeting was called after news reached England of the massacre of
more than 2,000 Armenians in Constantinople in addition to many more
massacres throughout the Turkish Empire.
According to The Times, the doors of the building were thrown open
at 9 o’ clock – three and a half hours before the arranged time –
and very speedily the spacious circus was thronged in every part by
an audience of 6,000 people, while thousands remained outside.
The aim of this meeting was to propose and pass the following
resolution: “That this meeting desires to express its indignation and
abhorrence at the cruel treatment to which the Armenian Christians
are being subjected by their Turkish rulers and at the massacres which
have recently taken place in Constantinople, which are a disgrace to
the civilization of the 19th century.”
After the resolution was seconded, it was passed
unanimously. Mr. Gladstone stepped on the platform amid general
applause and cheering. He began his speech clarifying that the
resolution and the actions demanded by the British government was not
a “crusade against Mahomedanism” since Britain believed the horrible
outrages had been perpetrated not by Moslem fanaticism but “by the
deliberate policy of a Government.” He continued: “It is not from the
genuine sense of the Turkish people – nay, I would even say it is
not from the genuine sense even of the wretched tools and servants
of the Government, but it is from the highest summit and from the
inmost centre those mischiefs have proceeded. It is there mainly –
I doubt if it would be any exaggeration to say it is there only –
that the inspiration has been supplied, the policy devised, and the
whole series of these proceedings carried on from time to time.”
Mr. Gladstone then recollected the “gigantic” massacres of the
past 18 months that were thought to be so extraordinary that it
was without a precedent in the past. Unfortunately, he added, those
massacres were followed up one after the other and developed into
a series. Mr. Gladstone believed that Sultan Abdul Hamid felt so
confident about his triumph over the diplomacy of the European Powers
that he was bold enough to carry the work of the massacres into the
capital under the eyes of foreign Ambassadors.
Mr. Gladstone continued describing the horrible situation in Armenia
saying that the atrocities were not confined to murder only. To the
atrocities were added the work of “lust, torture, pillage, starvation
and every wickedness that men could devise.” He said that what was
different between the massacres perpetrated in the Armenian provinces
and those in Constantinople was that the latter was displayed in
the face of the world under the eyes of the representatives of every
Court in Europe, adding insolence to the great crime.
Gladstone added: “Translate the acts of the Sultan into words and
they become these, ‘I have tried your patience in distant places;
I will try it under your own eyes. I have desolated my provinces;
I will now desolate my capital. I have found that your sensitiveness
has not been effectually provoked by all that I have heretofore done;
I will come nearer to you and see whether … I shall or shall not wake
the wrath which has slept so long.'” Mr. Gladstone blamed the European
Powers for failing to punish the Sultan and the Ottoman Government. In
fact, he asserted that the Powers had collectively undergone miserable
disgrace for not being able to obtain from the Sultan fulfillment of
his treaty obligations. In that Europe had been a total failure.
What concerned Gladstone more was that Turkey was still considered
an ally who was entitled to claim every diplomatic courtesy by the
European Powers.
Britain and the rest of Europe maintained diplomatic relations with
Turkey although they were unable to prevent the massacre of thousands
of Armenians in the streets of Constantinople. In fact, he blamed the
British Government even more because of the treaties it had signed
with Turkey, yet was not able to stop the massacres. He described
the position of Great Britain with regard to Turkey as such:
Sassoun Massacres by Turkish soldiers and Kurdish mob. “Turkey and
Armenian Atrocities” Rev. E.M. Bliss, 1896.
“In 1856, by the Treaty of Paris, Turkey gave a solemn promise
to introduce into Armenia … effective reforms. She broke
that promise. She renewed the promise in 1878 in the Treaty of
Berlin. As far as Armenia is concerned, she again absolutely broke
that promise. In 1878 another treaty was formed, known by the name of
the Anglo-Turkish Convention: and there England endeavored to obtain
securities for the fulfillment of the promise by offering compensation.
England undertook to defend Turkey in Armenia against unjust aggression
from Russia, Turkey undertaking in return to introduce into Armenia
reforms … The first two of these treaties constituted obligations
by which the other Powers of Europe were bound, in conjunction with
us…; but the third was entirely our own… The Sultan of Turkey
has interpreted reforms to mean wholesale and immeasurable massacre;
and that is the condition in which … we have placed ourselves in
the face of Turkey.”
Therefore, Gladstone proposed it was only just to threaten Turkey
with coercion, not war, by first recalling the British Ambassador to
the Ottoman Empire and then following it with the dismissal of the
Turkish Ambassador from London. He believed that once diplomatic ties
were severed, there would arise a free opportunity to consider what
could be done next. His speech detailed the steps that the British
Government should take in order to make Turkey comply with the treaties
it had signed regarding the reforms in Armenia. Gladstone demanded
that the people of Great Britain would support their government in
every effort which it would make by word or deed in order to stop the
“most monstrous series of proceedings that has ever been recorded in
the dismal and the deplorable history of human crime.”
At the end of his 20-minute speech, Gladstone hoped and believed that
“the present deplorable situation [was] not due to the act or default
of the Government of this great country.”
The Times in an editorial said: “The spectacle of the veteran statesman
quitting his retirement to plead the cause of the oppressed is
well-calculated to move the sympathy and admiration of the nation. The
ardor of Mr. Gladstone’s feelings on this subject is notorious. All
the more striking and significant is the comparative restraint and
moderation of the speech.”
Although the speech was well-received by the British public, the
rest of Europe were skeptic. On September 27, the Austrian newspaper
Fremdenblatt said that Europe did not share Gladstone’s suggestion to
withdraw the Ambassadors of the European Powers from Constantinople. It
went even further that Gladstone should have “held his peace, as only
in the minds of his own blind partisans can there now be any doubt
left as to the impossibility of separate intervention in the Armenian
Question.” The Austrians believe a more united Europe would be more
effective. Another Austrian newspaper Neue Freie Presse doubted that
the English would go to war with Turkey. They believed that if the
British government adopted Gladstone’s suggestion, England would shut
itself out of the concert of Europe.
The Germans showed more animosity towards Gladstone. On September
27 the Cologne Gazette printed the following: “The English movement
in favor of the Armenians has found a mouthpiece in the busy old man
Gladstone – a clever reckoner and financial artist, but a confirmed
inefficient person in foreign politics… By unchaining the feelings
of western humanity against the Turks, England loses nothing, whereas
Germany will lose and has nothing to win.” The Hamburger Nachrichten
went further in accusing the English of meddling in the internal
affairs of other countries. It added that the English agitation in
favor of the Armenians and against the Sultan is mere pretexts based
upon hypocrisy. It went further explaining that without the British
political interests, the suffering of the Armenians in Turkey would
be less noticeable in ” hypocritical England.” The Germans had no
interest in the Armenians; in fact Hamburger Nachrichten went on
saying: “For us [Germans] the sound bones of a single Pomeranian
[German] grenadier are worth more than the lives of 10,000 Armenians.”
And as European Powers went on squabbling with each other regarding
their policy regarding the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan and much later
the Young Turks continued wiping out Armenians in one village or town
after another.
The Liverpool meeting in September 1896 was the last public appearance
of this great statesman who defended the weak and the oppressed. Cancer
was diagnosed in March 1898, and at the age of 89, he died in Hawarden
on May 19th of that same year. He was given a state funeral and buried
at Westminster Abbey in London.
–Boundary_(ID_xJHkoZzpge5tVSFD4nraUQ)–

WE’RE TALKING WISE THINGS BUT WE HAVE WHAT WE HAVE
Lragir.am
15 May 06
In an interview with the Karabakh Open Online Newspaper the leader
of the Karabakh organization of Yerkrapah Arkady Karapetyan stated
that we were cheated when the armistice was signed on May 12, 1994.
“We should have continued. They are still cheating. We are talking wise
things, but we have what we have. And we have social stratification,
a lack of ideology,” he said. What do we suggest the world recognizing:
what finance, what territories, and what ideology? They cannot realize
what we want either.
Arkady Karapetyan says we came to realize in 1998 that nation
preservation is the right for self-defense. “Currently, battle for
man, for person is underway in the world. Land belongs to the one
who lives on it. If you fail to organize your life on that land,
it no more yours,” said Arkady Karapetyan. The leader of Yerkrapah
of Karabakh commented on the words of the leader of Yerkrapahs of
Armenia that they will not give up a single patch of land. “There is
stratification among them too. Most of them do not have a cent, while
the rest are well off. I do not believe such statements, because I
think they have, to put it mildly, departed from the ideas that they
had. For the Karabakh Yerkrapahs, we are here, and nobody can make
us give up our home. If a person feels to be the lord of their home,
they defend their home some way. And those who consider our homeland
“a security area,” they are going to give up this land,” said Arkady
Karapetyan.

WHAT IS OPPOSITION IN ARMENIA?
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
15 May 06
The word “opposition,” which seemed to be gradually eluding the word
stock of the Armenian public and political thought, reappeared after
the secession of the Orinats Yerkir Party from the coalition and
the resignation of Speaker Arthur Baghdasaryan. The reaction of his
colleagues in the coalition, already former colleagues, was not as
strong, at least it did not appear as such, as the opposition parties,
at least those who appear as such (opposition, not political party).
The public, the political circles and the mass media were not
interested in the reason of this step of the Orinats Yerkir, its
likely impact on further processes as deeply as in the fact how the
opposition would accept the Orinats Yerkir. This is, in fact, a very
important question. But first it is important to find the answer to
another question, without which any answer to the previous question
would be far from being true. What is opposition? And if we narrow
the scope of the question, and put the question as follows: what
is opposition in Armenia? It is nothing but a group of people who
appeared in power for different periods of time or have kinship ties
of various degrees with government in power at different times. They
cannot even get on well with one another, for at different times
and for different periods were they in power, and each of them tends
to think that they deserve to return to power, because they had the
shortest stay in power and, what is more, without nepotism.
In other words, the biography of the present opposition does not
differ from that of Orinats Yerkir in a single episode. Moreover,
Orinats Yerkir itself rejected power. Whereas there is not a force in
opposition, which resigned from government offices on their own will,
except the National Democratic Union. Most probably, this is the reason
why it is beyond the opposition to insist on the government to resign
on their will, for they are reluctant to establish a precedent.
Hence, the notion of opposition is not distinct in Armenia, especially
that one can learn about its existence in front of Matenadaran, only
when weathermen predict sunny weather or sun with rain. They say press
and television are closed for them. But when they used to be in power,
not only the press and television were open for them. Consequently,
it is hard to imagine how such an amorphous being is going to make
a definite decision on accepting or rejecting some force. If the
opposition is able to make decisions at all, it should make decisions
on more important things, much more important than accession or
rejection of the Orinats Yerkir Party.
There is the other side of the question. In what political system is
it accepted to hold entrance exams for opposition or government?
Usually, in normal countries elections are held, and the society
decides which force should be opposition, and which one government.
And finally it is the society that decides the fate of political
forces. Opposition or government are not clubs where people are
accepted for some fee or social status. And it is at least surprising
that the representatives of the opposition, self-denying devotees
of democratic values, speak about the possibility and conditions of
accepting a political power, which rejected government (repentance,
confession, etc.), on the public channel and the Republic of Armenia
Official Newspaper, where the doors are allegedly closed before them.
But did the Republic Party repent, if the majority of its members
are to blame for the electoral fraud in 1998? Did the People’s
Party repent, if the majority of its members allied in 1999 with the
falsifiers of the election in 1998? And finally, did the opposition
repent or apologize to the society for the disappointment caused by
their innumerable vows for a revolution or constitutional ways.
Repentance and apology to the society for even the smallest mistake
are, in fact, very important, and in this sense it is not a pity
to provide airtime. However, it is necessary to repent in turn for
a proper repentance. And it is the society that should decide the
order. I personally rely on the memory of the society only for everyone
to “lift the weight” in turn. It will eventually become clear who is
forgiven and whose time is up.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress