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

DEVELOPMENTS IN ARAB WORLD IMPORTANT TO ARMENIA
Yerkir
15.05.2006 16:58
YEREVAN (YERKIR) – Armenian-Arab relations have historical
roots. Armenia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) are in the same region
and developments in the Middle East and the Arab world are important
to Armenia, UAE Ambassador to Armenia Khalifa Shagin al Mrr (residence
in Teheran) stated in Yerevan.
In his words, it would be normal if Armenia got observer status at
the League of Arab States (LAS). “It would allow it better understand
relations in the League,” he said.
LAS statute provides for changes, that would allow providing observer
status to Armenia, which will convey a new impulse for Armenian-Arab
mutually beneficial ties. In January 2005 the Armenian MFA and LAS
signed a memorandum on mutual understanding in Cairo. The agreement
provides for holding consultations with the LAS, cultural and education
cooperation.

ARMENIAN DEFENSE MINISTER AWARDED WITH PETER THE GREAT ORDER
Yerkir
15.05.2006 16:51
YEREVAN (YERKIR) – May 16 the ceremony of handing of the orders of
the all-Russian academy of defense issues will take place in the
Russian Embassy in Yerevan.
The orders will be handed by Russian Ambassador to Armenia Nikolay
Pavlov, vice president of the academy K. Hakobyan and president of
the academy Armenian branch S. Hakobyan.
Armenian Defense Minister Serge Sargsyan, Prosecutor General Aghvan
Hovsepyan and Russian Ambassador to Armenia Nikolay Pavlov will be
handed the order of Peter he Great. First deputy to the RA Defense
Minister, general staff chief, colonel general Mikael Harutyunyan
will be awarded with Alexander Nevsky order while chief military
prosecutor Gurgen Dakibaltyan will receive the order of Great Victory
Chairman of the permanent commission for defense, national security
and home affairs Mher Shahgeldyan will receive the order of Alexander
Nevsky and president of Mika Ltd. Mikael Baghdasarov will be handed
the order of Peter the Great of 2nd degree.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

BY KEEPING SILENCE OSCE ENCOURAGES AZERBAIJAN’S MILITARISM
Editorial
Yerkir.am
May 12, 2006
May 10 is the 12th anniversary of the ceasefire on the line of contact
between Karabagh and Azerbaijan. 12 years of ceasefire that has not
yet led to final peace. Therefore, the silence on the line of contact
between the conflicting parties is relative. The war continues.
Experts assure that shots can be heard on the border almost every
day. This means that people get injured or even die. The international
mediators become increasingly worried about this and appeal to the
conflicting parties to stop their militaristic rhetoric.
They appeal to all sides without specifying who makes calls for a
new war.
They do not want to specify not to offend them. Recently shooting
could be heard during the monitoring visit made by OSCE missions. But
even in this case the mediators did not announce from which side the
shootings were heard.
Isn’t it the direct responsibility of the personal representative
of OSCE Chairman-in-Office Andze Kasprzik and his field assistants
investigate such incidents and prevent their recurrence in the
future. The great “equality” that they are trying to preserve amounts
to encouragement of Azerbaijan’s militaristic and anti-Armenian
rhetoric.
At the recent hearings in Nagorno Karabagh National Assembly the
Karabagh Minister of Foreign Affairs Georgi Petrossian made a proposal
that all parties should sign a document reasserting the cease fire
regime. No response. This means that the mediators are interested
in this situation because they can use it to achieve their political
objectives.
There can be no other explanation to the mediators’ position: on the
one hand they call for speedy restoration of peace in the region,
on the other hand they support Azerbaijan’s militaristic moods. In
this context, the international organizations’, including OSCE’s,
statements that the responsibility for conflict settlement lies solely
with the conflicting parties is nothing more than a cover under which
they try to avoid their own responsibility for the existing situation.
It is difficult not to agree with the former Russian Co-Chair Vladimir
Kazimirov who stated that OSCE practically does nothing to implement
its only agreement on Karabagh. He was referring to the agreement
signed on February 6, 1995 that aimed at settlement of incidents
and minimization of losses. ” However, Baku does not fulfill this
agreement and keeps silence.
So does OSCE… With such an approach regular monitoring visits will
not prevent complications and people being killed. The arms race
openly launched by Ilham Aliyev deserves criticism. In this case as
well, one can only be surprised with OSCE’s silence,” Kazimirov writes.

A CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH IS NEEDED
By Karine Mangassarian
Yerkir.am
May 12, 2006
What role can the political and societal attitudes of conflicting
parties have in the Karabagh settlement process? A roundtable
discussion was organized by Social Communication NGO and the Armenian
Association for Conflict and Peace Research on May 11 to discuss
this question.
Representative of ARF’s Supreme Body, head of the standing
parliamentary committee on external relations Armen Rustamian and
chairman of AACPR Khachik Galstian participated in the roundtable.
Rustamian started his presentation by referring to the meeting of the
Armenian and Azeri presidents in Rambouyet since this meeting generated
discussions that the negotiation process had entered a deadlock.
“Rambouollet was an important point and we have to assess it
objectively to understand where the negotiation process has reached
in the recent years and what the tendencies of today are. Many people
think that Rambouollet was a deadlock. I don’t think so. If we take
such an approach this would mean that we have had many deadlocks,”
Rustamian said noting that the logic of the negotiation process
occasionally implies such outcomes.
Rustamian believes the negotiation process should be assessed from
two perspectives. First, from the perspective of the degree of
constructivity and second from the perspective of efficiency of the
negotiations. There is a lot to do in terms of ensuring a constructive
approach and the international organizations accept this fact. They
believe that no projects implemented in the region can be efficient
unless the conflicts are resolved.
What should be done to make the positions of the conflicting parties
more constructive? “In the case of Karabagh settlement it becomes
increasingly evident that the settlement process cannot be constructive
if the settlement does not reflect the nature of the conflict. In
other words, this is an ethno-political conflict and there can be no
settlement unless its root causes are eliminated.
If the causes are not settled the conflict itself cannot be settled. I
think the international community gradually understands this,”
Rustamian stated noting that it is impossible to arrive at a final
settlement of a conflict if only the consequences of the conflict are
addressed without dealing with its causes. Otherwise, peace cannot
last long.
Meanwhile, Azerbaijan is trying to propose step-by-step settlement
considering today’s peace as a great concession to the Armenian
side. “Peace is necessary for everyone. It cannot be in the interests
of just one party. If the other side insists that peace is a concession
and the other party should make concessions in return, this is wrong.
The negotiation process cannot be constructive if the parties do not
understand the necessity for peace,” Rustamian noted. He believes
it is wrong to address all conflicts with one and the same formula
since even the three conflicts in our region are different in terms
of their political, historical and legal aspects.
Azerbaijan is not willing to accept this fact and insists on settlement
of the conflict based on its territorial integrity. “We are ready
to respect Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity but Karabagh has never
been a part of independent Azerbaijan”, Rustamian stated.
Azerbaijan rejects any cooperation while Armenia, according to
Rustamian, considers that a platform of common interests should
be created to mitigate the parties’ mutual distrust towards each
other. Otherwise, no one can guarantee that even if an agreement is
reached it will not be breached on the very next day.
Commenting on the efficiency of the negotiation process,
Rustamian noted that the Karabagh conflict is unique in that
one of the conflicting parties, Karabagh, is not involved in the
negotiations. “What we have today is not negotiations but simply
consultations.
This process should eventually contribute to negotiations whereby
the three parties will sit around the negotiation table and agree on
a final document,” Rustamian noted adding that Armenia should not be
blamed for getting involved in the conflict since if Armenia had not
involved in it another genocide would have been committed in Karabagh.
Khachik Galstian talked about the role of people’s diplomacy in
conflict settlement, in other words, the role of the public sector. He
believes that even though on the level of political relations
militaristic statements are voiced especially by Azerbaijan, people’s
diplomacy should aim at the peaceful settlement of the conflict.
“People will have the final say in any solution of Nagorno Karabagh
conflict, ” Galstian stated noting that on this level we can witness
double standards of ethics whereby a murderer is announced the man
of the year in Azerbaijan and a murderer in Armenia.
Is the government undertaking any measures to organize interaction
between the parties at this level? According to Rustamian, the Armenian
side has always proposed to Azerbaijan to establish such relations.
However, if any Azeri political figure attempts to do something in
this direction he will not be able to return to Azerbaijan because
they think that engaging in such a dialog means treason of their
country. Galstian believes such relations should be established on
the level of intercultural communication.
Azerbaijan is not ready for this either.
What expectations can we have from the two presidents’ next
meeting? Can we expect it to be more constructive? Rustamian is not
very optimistic about this since today the principle approaches of
the two parties are very different.
Even if a document is drafted it cannot be considered final and
will only be a document stating the principles on which the parties
agree. Meanwhile, the answers to the important and subtle issues
related to the conflict can only be reached through serious work of
experts and political scientists.

ARS AWARDED THE BEST STUDENTS
By Lilit Galstian
Yerkir.am
May 12, 2006
Ninety best students received awards in the framework of the
Armenian Relief Society’s annual Best Student program. This
program was initiated in 1993 and aims at encouraging students from
socially vulnerable families studying as tuition-paying students
at universities.
ARS’s Central Board provides six thousand dollars annually to award
100 dollar prizes to 60 students every year. However, as a rule,
the number of students receiving awards increases due to funding
provided by ARS’s regional organizations. This year ARS’s office in
Greece provided additional funding for the program.
The award ceremony was held on May 10. Armenian Revolutionary
Federation (ARF) Bureau member and Deputy Speaker of the National
Assembly Vahan Hovhannissian, member of ARF’s Supreme Board of Armenia
and head of the Diaspora Department at the Ministry of Science and
Education Hrach Tadevossian, member of ARS ‘s Central Board Karine
Hovhannissian and other guests attended the ceremony.
“ARS is an organization registered as a charity organization under
the UNO.
The culture of charity is not adequately developed in Armenia.
What we usually see as charity – for instance a businessman renovating
the roof of a school, or repairing the roads in a village – this is
not charity in the classical meaning of the word. This is done to
gain political profit during elections. Meanwhile, ARS, and a couple
of other organizations, do charity proper, in the classical meaning
of the word. This is not the only program our organization implements.
Not many people know about ARS’s orphan-care program. ARS has been
paying 120 dollars to 7000 children who lost their parents during the
war for the past 13 years. This is much more than our government can
do,” Vahan Hovhannissian stated.
Hovhannissian stressed the importance of the Best Student Program
since it fosters the education level of the young generation. “The
money the students receive does not cover all of their needs. However,
this is an encouragement.
Tomorrow, many of them will become leaders of the country. We have
to motivate them to understand that fair competition should prevail
in education,” Hovhannissian said.
Over 200 students from public and private universities of Armenia
apply to participate in the program. Even though applications from
private universities are also considered public universities have a
priority. Students in their second year and higher can participate
in the competition.
“We think that the tuition fees at public universities are higher this
is why we are trying to help the students at public universities. Of
course there are some exceptions because we really have many good
students,” Karine Hovhannissian said.
ARS is implementing a similar program in Artsakh. This year the
program will be launched in Javakhq. Several students from Javakhq have
received awards every year in the framework of the program implemented
in Armenia. This year it was decided that 5 out of 60 awards will
be allocated for students from Javakhq studying in Armenia. Separate
awards are envisaged for students from Artsakh.

FRENCH DEPUTY SAYS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND HOLOCAUST ESSENCE
Yerkir.am
May 12, 2006
In an interview with the Turkish daily Sabah, Didie Migo, a Solicits
member of the French National Assembly and sponsor of a bill penalizing
the denial of the Armenian Genocide, said he continues to support
the bill.
“I have no intention to teaching lessons of ethics to the Turks,”
Migo was quoted as saying. “But I don’t share the opinion of the
French deputies who oppose the bill.”
As reported by the Noyan Tapan, Migo said the bill is the continuation
of the 2001 French law recognizing the Armenian Genocide.
He also said historians will still be free to make their assessments
and that the French courts should be trusted in evaluating the
difference between denial and assessments.
Comparing the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, the French lawmaker
said: “For us there is no difference because there is no difference
between the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, both were the
same in essence, and it is incomprehensible why Turkey continues to
deny the fact of the Genocide.
This is an indisputable fact. It is, indeed, hard for a nation to
admit that their grandfathers committed unjust acts in the past.”

HEARINGS ON THE 15TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ETHNIC CLEANSING HELD IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH
ArmRadio.am
15.05.2006 16:48
Speaker of the NKR National Assembly Ashot Ghulyan declared today that
in April-June 1991 the authorities of Soviet Azerbaijan organized and
carried out ” a cruel policy of ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh
and adjacent territories” on the state level.”
Ashot Ghulyan said this speaking at the parliamentary hearings on
“Oghak operation: The violations of Soviet Azerbaijan and Soviet Union
authorities against the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh and
adjacent territories.”
Ashot Ghulyan noted that the accomplishment of these programs stalled
the nationwide struggle of the Karabakh people, which ended in the
establishment of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.
“Only establishment of statehood could resist this policy, which
resulted in the establishment of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in
1992,” the NA Speaker noted.
Head of the NKR Parliament spoke for the unification of the efforts
of state structures to collect facts of anti-Armenian policy of
Azerbaijan. He informed that an ad hoc committee will be set to
investigate the violations against the people of Nagorno-Karabakh by
authorities of Soviet and independent Azerbaijan.
Participants of the hearings characterized the “Oghak” operation as a
” terrorist act by Azerbaijan.” It was noted during the hearings that
the Azeri authorities did not only refuse to take responsibility for
these actions, but also continue to speak on the language of terrorism
with Nagorno-Karabakh, threatening to resolve the Karabakh conflict
via force.
During the “Ohak” operation 6030 people from 24 villages were
forcefully displaced.