The Armenian Mirror-Spectator
755 Mount Auburn St.
Watertown, MA 02472
Tel: (617) 924-4420
Fax: (617) 924-2887
Web:
E-mail: editor@mirrorspectator.com
October 10, 2009
1. Col. Moorad Mooradian, Longtime Mirror-Spectator Columnist, Dies
2. ADL, Armenagan Members Meet with President Sargisian
3. President Sargisian Meets With Diasporans in New York
4. Foreign Minister of Armenia Speaks at Columbia University
5. Election Commission Rules Against Krikorian
6. Editorial: Let’s Review Our Declarations=85
7. Review: The Struggle towards Remembrance of the `Forgotten Genocide’
8. Editorial: Rest in Peace, Moorad
****************************************** *******
1. Col. Moorad Mooradian, Longtime Mirror-Spectator Columnist, Dies
RICHMOND, Va. – Dr. Moorad Mooradian died on September 30.
He was born in Rhode Island, graduated from Central High School, Rhode
Island College and the University of Rhode Island.
He received his PhD from George Mason University in Virginia. He was a
four-time Fulbright Scholar to Armenia and established the first conflict
resolution center in any former Soviet state, at Yerevan State University.
He was a highly decorated, 30-year Army veteran who served in Vietnam. He
had been a regular columnist for the Armenian Mirror-Spectator dating back
to 1991. He had taught at George Mason University and Yerevan State
University. In addition, he was an accomplished reporter and author,
sought-after speaker and champion for Armenian causes both in America and
Armenia. He was a longtime member of the Executive Committee of the Armenia
Tree Project.
Mooradian leaves his wife, Lillian; their four children, Paul, Martin and
Gregory Mooradian and Natalie Hogan and their spouses; eight grandchildren
and one great-grandchild. He also leaves two sisters, Anahith Boyajian and
Beatrice Petricone, and an extended family of cousins, nieces and nephews.
A requiem service was held on Sunday, October 4, at St. James Armenian
Apostolic Church, Richmond. Interment was on Monday, October 5, at the
Quantico National Cemetery, Triangle, Va.
Another requiem service will be held on Sunday, October 11, at 1 p.m. in
Providence, RI at Sts. Sahag & Mesrob Armenian Apostolic Church, 70
Jefferson St.
In lieu of flowers, donations may be sent to the Armenia Tree Project at
their website: or by phone in the Watertown, Mass.
office.
The family wishes to thank those who have expressed concern and support for
him and his family during his illness.
************************************** ****************
2. ADL, Armenagan Members Meet with President Sargisian
YEREVAN – On October 1, before leaving for his tour of diaspora centers,
President Serge Sargisian met with a delegation of the ADL and Armenagan
Ramgavar members. The delegates were from the US, Canada, Europe, the Middle
East and Armenia.
The president said that for him it is very important the role ADL plays in
the diaspora especially for the benefit of the Armenian communities in the
sphere of culture, education and in Armenia-Diaspora relations. The
president said he hoped that the meeting scheduled in Armenia would help
solve the party’s problems.
Then the president spoke with his guests about improving Armenian-Turkish
relations and answered to their questions. He said: `Your views about this
question are very important for me. As you know, I decided to start an
international trip because I am sure that in order to solve important
problems for our people, it is important that the government know
everybody’s views. The views are different and I should listen all views
and
explain the fundamentals of the process.’
The delegates thanked the president for the conversation. They said that
this meeting and the conversation helped them understand consequences of the
protocol, and wished him luck.
***************************************** *******
3. President Sargisian Meets With Diasporans in New York
By Taleen Babayan
Mirror-Spectator Staff
NEW YORK – Addressing a select group of people at the New York Palace Hotel,
Serge Sargisian, President of the Republic of Armenia, once again insisted
that the Armenian Genocide and Nagorno Karabagh issues would not be affected
by the Armenian-Turkish protocols.
Echoing the tenor of a talk by Eduard Nalbandian, foreign minister of
Armenia, delivered at Columbia University lastTuesday, Sargisian said that
it is necessary to establish relations with Turkey without preconditions.
A day after tense demonstrations in Paris, Sargisian was met with protestors
outside the New York Palace Hotel, waving Armenian flags and holding signs
that read `Don’t Compromise Armenia’s Future’ and ‘Genocide Is Not
Negotiable.’
Inside the hotel Sargisian met with some 50 leaders of the Armenian-American
community, including representatives of the Armenian Democratic Liberal
Party (ADL) Eastern District Committee, the Armenian General Benevolent
Union, the Armenian Assembly of America, the Armenian National Committee of
America, the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America and the Prelacy of
the Armenian Church of America, in a conference-room setting.
He spoke uninterrupted for close to half an hour, acknowledging the concerns
of the diaspora, while stressing that relations between Turkey and Armenia
should be normalized.
`I do believe that staying enemies with Turkey for an eternity is not
helpful or useful to us,’ said Sargisian. `This is why I initiated the
current phase of Armenian-Turkish negotiations.’
Speaking about the events of 1915, Sargisian described Turkey as a country
that `subjected us to Genocide, deprived us of our vital areas and 100 years
since, has not only denied this reality but retained its hostile attitude
and actions.’
`There are grounds for pessimism and doubt,’ he said. `On the other hand, we
expect there will be a discussion on the merits of the protocols.’
Addressing concerns about the provision in the protocols which calls for the
establishment of a subcommittee of historians to review the Genocide,
Sargisian insisted this approach would not strike a `blow to the campaign
for the international recognition of the Genocide.’
As to arguments that the protocols would force Armenia to relinquish all
claims to historic Armenian lands in present-day Turkey, Sargisian said `we
as a state cannot file territorial claims against another state.’
`We’re signing protocols on improving relations,’ he said. `I don’t think by
establishing ties with Turkey, we would be shutting the door for our claims
or demands.’
In the second part of his address, Sargisian said that Armenia won Nagorno
Karabagh on the battlefield and will continue fighting for its recognition
in the international arena.
`This process is being dealt with by the [Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe] Minsk Group co-chairs,’ he said. `We will opt for
settlement only in one instance, and that is if we get what we have been
seeking since 1988: Nagorno Karabagh cannot be part of Azerbaijan.’
The Minsk Group was established by the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe in 1992 in order to negotiate between Armenia and
Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabagh. Sargisian was expected to meet with
Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev on October 8.
`Indeed we are a small country, indeed our possibilities aren’t as great as
Turkey’s, but we can’t act from the position of the weak,’ Sargisian
said in
the conclusion of his remarks. `Our salvation lies in having a strong and
prosperous state, and we are all united around this common objective.’
Sargisian then opened up the floor to questions and discussion. The
president’s staff announced that the question-and-answer session would be
off-the-record. The discussion lasted for several hours.
Sargisian was accompanied by former President of Karabagh Arkady
Ghoukassian, Armenia’s Ambassador to the US Tatoul Markarian, Armenia’s
Ambassador to the United Nations Garen Nazarian, Minister of Diaspora
Hranoush Hakobyan and others.
Said Bryan Ardouny, executive director of the Armenian Assembly, `President
Sargisian addressed the concerns raised whether it was the concern that the
protocols called for a joint historical commission to debate the Genocide or
if the protocols would forfeit Nagorno Karabagh. The president addressed
these concerns and made it very clear there are no preconditions. It was at
times a passionate exchange from the participants. Sargisian listened to all
comments and concerns and addressed them.’
The representative of ADL Eastern District Committee was Vartan Ilandjian,
vice chairman of New York Chapter; the representative of the Tekeyan
Cultural Association Central Board of Directors was Antoine Bazarbashian.
>From Canada, ADL Board members Hratch Torikian, Dr. Hrair Der Kevork and
Barkev Nazaretian participated.
********************************* *********************
4. Foreign Minister of Armenia Speaks at Columbia University
*By Taleen Babayan**
**Mirror-Spectator Staff***
NEW YORK – In a lecture at New York’s Columbia University on Tuesday,
September 29, Armenia’s Foreign Minister Dr. Eduard Nalbandian stressed that
questions concerning the Nagorno-Karabagh issue and the Armenian Genocide
would not be put in jeopardy by the Armenia-Turkey protocols, due to be
signed this month.
The 30-minute talk, which was open to the public, also highlighted in more
general terms Armenia’s foreign policy agenda and other regional
difficulties the country faces.
`The Caucasus region presents a hot spot with security threats and
challenges,’ said Nalbandian. `Interstate tensions have arisen because
of
closed borders and the economic blockade [on Armenia].’
Nalbandian advocated the open-border policy with Turkey, saying it would
bring security and stability to the region. Nalbandian said that if the
protocols are ratified, Armenia would establish diplomatic relations with
Turkey within a two-month time period, and subsequently create
sub-commissions addressing issues such as consular affairs and
transportation between the two countries.
Another commission of international experts would be charged with opening up
dialogue on the Armenian Genocide – a move that Nalbandian insisted would
allow Armenia and Turkey to address the past without compromising the
historical factuality of the 1915 Genocide.
Nalbandian also emphasized Armenia’s determination to find `a durable and
just resolution of the Nagorno-Karabagh’ question.
`There are no preconditions, and the Nagorno-Karabagh settlement cannot be
linked with Armenian-Turkey normalization,’ Nalbandian said repeatedly.
`This is separate, and any linkage between them will damage this process.’
Turning to broader foreign policy concerns, Nalbandian said a key challenge
is to strengthen relations in the Caucasus. `For Armenia, regional security
is a priority,’ he said. `Differences should be settled by peaceful means.’
Nalbandian, who is on an official visit to the United States, said he
recently met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss ways to
further enhance cooperation between the United States and Armenia. He said
that they have reached new levels of engagement with the Individual
Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) between Armenia and NATO.
A charged question-and-answer session followed Nalbandian’s presentation,
focusing mostly on the Armenia-Turkey protocols. Nalbandian said that only
press statements released jointly by the parties involved in the
Armenia-Turkey talks should be considered as official positions on the
issue. He added that many rumors are circulating in the Armenian community
to the detriment of the negotiation process.
An announcement outlining the protocols was released on August 31 by the
foreign ministers of Armenia, Turkey and Switzerland. Titled the `Protocol
on the establishment of diplomatic relations’ and the `Protocol on the
development of bilateral relations,’ the two documents must be signed and
submitted to the parliaments of both countries for ratification before the
process can move forward.
`We shouldn’t leave the burden of our problems on the coming generation,’
Nalbandian said. `We need mutual cooperation and our common objective should
be the shaping of a region that is safe and prosperous for all.’
The September 29 lecture – titled `Armenian Foreign Policy: Challenges
in
the Region of the Caucasus’ – was hosted by the Harriman Institute and
Columbia University Armenian Society at the university’s School of
International and Public Affairs. The event drew Armenians representing a
wide range of organizations, representatives of the Armenian and Turkish
embassies, including Armenia’s Ambassador to the US Tatoul Markarian,
Armenia’s Ambassador to the UN Garen Nazarian, and Turkey’s Consul in New
York Ayse Uzer, as well as Armenian and Turkish journalists.
`It is critical to have a constructive dialogue about the
protocols throughout the diaspora so that the voice of every Armenian can be
heard,’ said Nora Khanarian, a graduate student who is secretary of the
Columbia University Armenian Society.
`It is not only important for Armenia’s leaders to come to diasporan
communities and speak with them in open forums, it is imperative,’ said
William Bairamian, a graduate student who is a member of the Columbia
University Armenian Society. `Armenia’s leaders must recognize that the
diaspora has been indispensable in Armenia’s development since
independence.’
**************************** ************************
5. Election Commission Rules Against Krikorian **
*By Thomas C. Nash*
*Special to the Mirror-Spectator*
COLUMBUS, Ohio – The Ohio Elections Commission voted to reprimand David
Krikorian on Thursday, October 1, for making false statements relating to a
2008 congressional election campaign in which he alleged his opponent took
`blood money’ to deny the Armenian Genocide.
Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Republican who represents Ohio’s second district, filed
false-claims charges against Krikorian in April, shortly after he announced
he would run for the seat as a Democrat in 2010.
In the 2008 election season, Krikorian, in some campaign literature, had
accused Schmidt of taking `blood money’ to `deny the genocide of Christian
Armenians by Muslim Turks’ as a co-chair of the Caucus on US Turkish
Relations and Turkish Americans.
Just before the election, candidate Krikorian, who then was running as an
independent, wrote, `The people of Ohio’s second district will, if they
elect [Schmidt] on November 4th, condone her denial of the Genocide of 1.5
million Christians. And, in so doing, be guilty of a crime against humanity
as the cover-up is just as bad as the crime.’
Krikorian’s attorney, Mark Geragos, expressed concern after the October 1
ruling that testimony supporting the allegations was not allowed at either
the initial September 3 hearing or the follow-up, including that of FBI
whistleblower Sibel Edmonds.
Edmonds broke a Justice Department gag order imposed in 2002 to give a
deposition for the case in August. Among the intercepted communications she
says she translated during her stint working for the FBI in the immediate
wake of 9/11, is proof of the Turkish government’s illegal influence in
Congress, the Department of Defense and the State Department – including
efforts to block the Armenian Genocide resolution through bribery and
blackmail.
The commission, which during the hearing comprised of four Republicans and
one Democrat, voted 5-0 to reprimanded Krikorian for making false
statements.
Some of the false-claims charges were dismissed. The claim that Krikorian
falsely stated Schmidt took money from Turkish contributors was voted down
3-2, while a claim that he falsely used Federal Elections Commission
information was dismissed 4-1.
Geragos said the decisions reflected the partisan nature of the panel.
`It’s obviously a political decision in that [Krikorian] is a Democrat
and
the three who voted against him are Republicans,’ Geragos said.
While Schmidt’s attorney, Donald Brey, said his client had not sought fines
or prosecution for Krikorian, which were also possibilities, he said he
would expect Krikorian not to make such statements going forward.
`It’s one thing to say `I think she should have signed off on this
resolution,’ but it’s not fair game to tell people she took money from
the
Turkish government,’ Brey said. `They found that he lied about that. Voters
have a right to know the truth.’
Geragos said an appeal would likely be filed `in very short order.’
`[Krikorian] didn’t do anything except tell the truth in a federal election,
where a state board has no business,’ Geragos added.
In addition to the appeal, another case stemming from Schmidt v. Krikorian
may be brewing. Peter Musurlian, an Armenian filmmaker on hand to document
the hearing on September 3 told the Cincinnati Enquirer he would file
criminal charges against Brey for shoving him as he entered an elevator.
Musurlian could not be reached on deadline.
*************************************** **************
6. Editorial: Let’s Review Our Declarations=85
*By Hagop Vartivarian***
`If it should be in the interest of the Armenian people to shake the hand of
the Turk one day, you must forget that that hand has been dipped in the
blood of your father. Politics is not poetry. There aren’t any permanent
friends and permanent enemies when it comes to peoples. There are permanent
interests and damages. As long as you cannot restrain your feelings, you
can’t become the leader of your people. You remain a poet-agitator. What
is
worse, you aren’t the one who is pushing the crowd; rather, it is the crowd
that is pulling you behind it.’
– Ruben (Pasha) Ter Minassian
The above quote pertaining to Armeno-Turkish interrelations reflects the
judgment of one of the well-known figures of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation (ARF), particularly during his youth. This is the sober judgment
of an Armenian activist, who had walked alongside Antranig, the incomparable
Megerdich Avedisian and the great Mourad of Sebastia during the days when
the Armenian people was subjected to genocide by the Ottoman Turks, Young
Turks and Kemalist Turks.
This is not the first time that the Armenian people have been forced to
establish relations with the Turks. Generally familiar are the treaties of
Batumi and Kars, and especially the shameful Treaty of Alexandropol, which
were signed by the Dashnak authorities of the first Republic of Armenia and
the Turkish government representatives in the early 1920s, with the former
relinquishing territorial claims.
It should also not be forgotten that the Dashnaks, having embraced the Young
Turks in 1908, not only extended a helping hand to them, but also
collaborated with them.
Today, Armenia is facing a new political order in the otherwise explosive
region of the Caucasus. On the east, there is the Karabagh independence
movement against Azerbaijan; on the west, the blockade by Turkey. On the
north, there is the prospect of Georgia’s uncertain political future,
coupled with the demands of the Javakhk Armenians for their rights; on the
south, the rather hard-line position of the West with regard to Iran. These
realities force the Armenian authorities to adopt a prudent stance,
politically and militarily.
Worthy of consideration also is the major world economic crisis and the
gradually-increasing competitive struggle between the two superpowers Russia
and the United States, which had created relatively warm relations following
the cold war, from which the Armenian people undoubtedly derived benefit.
With the creation of unusual economic and political conditions, it would be
difficult for Armenia to continue its existence in a normal manner without
being jolted. As it is, more than one third of our people have left the
homeland. The financial assistance coming from the diaspora (traditional or
the former Soviet republics) has greatly slowed down. The flow of money from
Armenian organizations has also begun to diminish, again as a consequence of
the world economic crisis. The allocations and various kinds of help from
the United States and other friendly countries earmarked for Armenia are a
fraction of what they were previously.
Meanwhile, Azerbaijan is rapidly increasing its military capacity through
revenues generated from the sale of its oil. In recent weeks, the United
States renewed the otherwise super-strong Turkish army in the Middle East
with modern military equipment worth approximately eight billion dollars.
The Armenians living in the homeland experienced agonizing days this time
last year, when South Ossetia was fighting for its independence prior to its
seizure. With the closure of the northern border, Armenia had to depend upon
Iran, which couldn’t provide the Armenian people with the most fundamental
daily foodstuffs, inasmuch as the nearest harbor was miles away.
The initiative to cultivate new relations between Armenia and Turkey, with
the prospect of creating a good neighborly situation, was surely made as a
compulsory addition to this mosaic. The very next day after the declaration,
not only the United States and the rest of the West but also Russia and even
Syria hailed such an initiative.
The development of such a relationship is not something, which has come
about only now. Such initiatives existed during the administrations of the
first president, Levon Ter-Petrosian, and the second president, Robert
Kocharian. Attributing such an initiative to the current president Serge
Sargisian and qualifying it as an act of betrayal toward Armenia and the
Armenian people is not only inappropriate but also far from being honest.
Again, it wouldn’t be correct to also put the major share of responsibility
for this on the shoulders of Edward Nalbandian, Armenia’s Minister of
Foreign Affairs, who is a respected diplomat having earned his present
position through years of experience, because both the president of the
republic and the foreign minister are supremely aware of their
responsibility, especially during these difficult days, and are working
together to secure national rights from Turkey in order to defend our
borders and maintain our republic’s sovereignty.
With years of accumulated experience and, especially, being quite familiar
with the feelings and just demands of our people both in the diaspora and
the homeland, they shall cultivate Armeno-Turkish relations with utmost
wisdom.
We don’t at all have the right to judge and evaluate the patriotism of our
respected president and foreign minister. We don’t have the right to put
the
patriotism of any national public servant on the balance scales and weigh
it, least of all that of Mr. Serge Sargisian, who was the capable defense
minister of the Republic of Armenia for many years. He has fought in the
trenches during war, experienced life on the front and demonstrated the
everyday patriotism of the Armenian soldier. He has secured not only the
borders of our homeland but also the security zones of Artsakh and vicinity.
Uproar over Armeno-Turkish relations and negotiations has been made in the
diaspora largely by the ARF. This is so, despite the fact that the ARF of
Armenia was a party to President Serge Sargisian’s government during and
after his election campaign. When the ARF wholeheartedly fought against
Levon Ter-Petrosian’s opposition movement in the past presidential
elections, its intention was to secure a few ministerial posts in the
administration.
With the prospect of reinsuring its reputation, which it had slowly begun to
lose, the ARF adopted this orientation. It did so to become the standard
bearer of the Armenian Case, having already lost all hope of coming to power
in the homeland and having given way to other political assemblies in the
diaspora. Yes, the ARF came forth, considering this new development the best
opportunity to achieve its goal. As it makes a new attempt at cheap
demagoguery by rekindling the natural hidden feelings of the Armenian
people, it once again is presenting itself as the competent party to the
rights of the Armenian people and the enemy of the Turk. In the 21st century
too, Ruben Pasha would have said, `Simply poetic politics!’
On the contrary, the current leaders of such an organization enriched with
years of experience should have adopted a different policy. These days, a
greater level of seriousness was to be expected from an organization having
experienced the extremes of Armenian life, having participated in the
revolutionary movement, having gained a fair amount of political maturity
during the years of the first Republic of Armenia, and having often been
involved in the international political sphere.
The street was not to be the venue of such a reaction to this new
development in Armeno-Turkish relations. Solutions to the present situation
will not be found in the streets of Yerevan, New York or Toronto, with a few
hundred rank-and-file members hoisting protest banners. On the contrary, one
would think that new sober-minded political figures, who have now joined the
ARF bureau, should have sat down on a higher level with Armenian government
leaders. Certainly every reasonable individual knows that there are other
diplomatic ways to reach the president and discuss Armeno-Turkish relations.
Fortunately, the ARF’s effort to also hitch our other traditional political
parties to its wagon failed, except for Toronto, where only a handful of
misguided Ramgavars participated in the rally organized by it. It should be
said that the silent majority of the Armenian Democratic Liberal Party’s
(Ramgavar) membership stays true to its orientation, maintaining its loyalty
to and trust in Armenia’s authorities on a permanent basis. This has always
been our traditional direction. Furthermore, if certain Ramgavar circles are
not expressing their protest against the ARF in public, they are simply
following internal party discipline and stating their anger only in narrow
circles. The same is the case with the Hunchaks too, who, despite the
declaration of their supreme body, have not totally severed their ties with
the Armenian authorities, whether in Armenia or the diaspora.
However, apart from our three traditional political parties, it must be
noted that today the Armenian Church carries an important weight and
represents public opinion, at least in the diaspora. As it is, its Diocesan
Primates don’t share the ARF’s opposition to the Protocols. The same goes
for the Armenian General Benevolent Union, the Armenian Assembly and other
new political groups, which support Armenia’s president and government
insofar as Armeno-Turkish relations are concerned, albeit with cautious
optimism.
Thus, it is not realistic to say that the Armenian Diaspora is totally
opposed to the restart of Armeno-Turkish relations. There is no such thing.
Today’s new generation is reading world public opinion with regard to
Armeno-Turkish dialogue, evaluating it and giving their opinion, one way or
the other. We are dealing with a new generation that has emerged from
Armenian ghettoes, is familiar with the world and possesses powerful reason
and logic. Moreover, every leader in charge of this or that organization
must be aware of this.
In light of all this, it is expected, particularly at this historic time,
that the leaders of our traditional political parties will rally around the
Armenian government, flank our president and, with their political
experience, engage in harmonious work with President Sargisian. The new
situation is of concern to every Armenian, whether diasporan or native,
whether in position of power, aspiring to power, or in the opposition. All
programs presented to us should be confronted with our collective forces.
To the credit of Armenia’s president, he will very shortly visit the
important centers of the diaspora and give extensive explanations to those
with positions of responsibility in our community, as well as the general
public. He is aware that it is the right of the Western Armenian segment of
our people, which is scattered all over the world, to know the motive for
negotiations by the current Armenian authorities and, particularly, if there
are pre-conditions connected with the Armenian Genocide and/or other issues.
In the final analysis, it is the president of the homeland of all Armenians
who is coming to visit our communities and, as such, he deserves a
respectful reception.
As a nation, we should equally share the responsibility for each success or
failure, because we are living through difficult days in an unnatural
environment.
Also, our political parties should have the prudence to review their hastily
released declarations, and soon they should present themselves to the
Armenian people as more prudent, sober-minded and far-sighted traditional
organizations.
`If it should be in the interest of the Armenian people to shake the hand of
the Turk one day, you must forget that that hand has been dipped in the
blood of your father.’
(Translated by Aris G. Sevag)
****************************************** **************
7. Review: The Struggle towards Remembrance of the `Forgotten Genocide’
*By Daphne Abeel *
*Special to the Mirror-Spectator***
*Children of Armenia: A Forgotten Genocide and the Century-Long Struggle for
Justice. By Michael Bobelian. Simon & Schuster. 388 pp. 2009. ISBN
978-1-4165-5725-8*
Over the decades, many both inside and outside of the Armenian community
have pondered the question: why did the Armenian Genocide become the
`forgotten genocide?’
In his new book, journalist and lawyer Michael Bobelian has set out to
answer that question.
By tracing the course of geopolitical events since World War I, he has
highlighted and shaped what may be familiar material to set down a narrative
that explains the virtual disappearance of the first genocide of the 20th
century from an international scene where once everyone knew and recognized
the plight of the `starving Armenians.’
This is not simply a chronicle of the forgetting, but also of the gradual
groundswell of effort, especially since the 50th anniversary of the events
of 1915, in the Armenian community to achieve full recognition of the
tragedy. Although widespread accounts of the Genocide in the international
press and eyewitness accounts from many including US Ambassador to the
Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau produced an outpouring of financial aid to
and sympathy for Armenians, Bobelian illustrates that a pattern of neglect
and marginalization of Armenian interests took hold after the promises of
the Treaty of Sevres were vacated. The failure of that treaty to deliver the
promise of an independent Armenia, and the consequent struggle between the
emerging Soviet Union and Turkey for control of a weak and fledgling
Armenian Republic, doomed Armenia and the Armenians to the sidelines of a
geopolitical struggle that blanketed their cause.
Bobelian’s account pays tribute to many individual Armenians who fought
tirelessly in their people’s cause to achieve not only the moral recognition
of the Armenian Genocide, but also the political reality of its statehood.
Among them were Armen Garo, who in 1896 led the takeover of the Ottoman
Bank; Avedis Aharonian, who represented the Armenian Republic in the
post-World War I peace talks, and who signed the Treaty of Sevres in 1920;
Krikor Zorab, an Armenian member of the Ottoman Parliament who was murdered
in the early stages of the Genocide; Michael Minasian, who led the efforts
in California in the 1960s to build a Genocide memorial; Van Z. Krikorian,
who lobbied ceaselessly in the 1980s for the passage of a resolution in the
US Congress to recognize the Genocide and Vartkes Yeghiayan, who filed the
successful class-action lawsuit against the New York Life Insurance Company
for the settlement of policies issued to Armenians during the period of the
Genocide.
There are also accounts of Armenians who chose violence to avenge wrongs, in
particular of Soghomon Tehlirian, who assassinated Talaat Pasha in Berlin in
1933. Bobelian provides an extended description of the assassination in 1973
of two Turkish diplomats in California by Gourgen Yanikian. In his portrayal
of Yanikian, he underlines how frustration and rage at the lack of justice
can influence an individual’s mental state.
Bobelian also traces the interdependence between the United States and
Turkey back to the efforts of Admiral Mark Bristol after World War I to
defeat the Armenian mandate and to champion Turkey’s interests in increased
trade with the US and diplomatic relations with the new nation of Turkey
formed under the leadership of Kemal Ataturk.
With the absorption of Armenia into the Soviet Union, the Armenian cause
faltered, and those who had escaped the Genocide found themselves in new
countries, faced with the challenge of rebuilding their lives. Many tried to
put the horrors of the Genocide behind them. Some individuals even changed
their names, denying their Armenian identity.
It was not until 1965 – the 50th anniversary of the Genocide – that the
Armenian community began to unite in its efforts to achieve recognition.
Since that time, memorials have been built, more than a handful of nations
have recognized the Genocide, and yearly resolutions have been filed in the
US Congress for recognition. But geopolitical interests have continued to
trump moral concerns. With Turkey a member of NATO and a convenient base for
US interests in the Middle East, the congressional resolution has been
defeated every time up to the present.
Still, Bobelian can point to some positive developments: the statements by
such leading Turkish intellectuals such as Taner Akçam and novelist Orhan
Pamuk that acknowledge the Genocide, the holding of a conference on Turkish
soil to discuss the Genocide and a spate of newly-published and
widely-distributed books that highlight the facts of the Genocide.
He notes, `Few mainstream works other than Franz Werfel’s Forty Days of Musa
Dagh touched the subject.’ [the Genocide]. In contrast to the Holocaust,
which was written about by a host of talented eyewitness writers such as
Primo Levi and Elie Wiesel, to name but two, the Genocide, for many decades,
remained largely the province of amateur accounts, many of which were not
translated from Armenian. Those who might have written more eloquently and
persuasively were among the first victims of the Armenian Genocide – the
intellectuals.
Inevitably, Bobelian’s book ends on a wistful and inconclusive note,
`=85nearly a century after the survivors spent so much energy rebuilding
their
lives that they hardly had time to mourn, their children – the children of
Armenia – are still waiting for justice to prevail.’
Still, change is on the horizon. Turkey and Armenia are processing the
opening of their borders, and while there is no provision that this be
dependent on Turkey’s recognition of the Genocide – and many in the Armenian
Diaspora oppose this border opening – the seeds could be there for a greater
flow of truthful information, and ultimate justice for the `forgotten
Genocide.’
Bobelian’s account will stand as a useful analysis of the way in which
national self-interests have triumphed over what is just and right. And it
is possible that self-interest, for example Turkey’s desire to become a
member of the European Union, may one day coincide with justice and the
acknowledgment of historical truth. The 100th anniversary, fast approaching
in 2015, could be the defining moment.
***************************************** ******
8. Editorial: Rest in Peace, Moorad
In the months since Moorad Mooradian’s health took a turn for the worse,
his
wife, Lillian, would call or e-mail once a week or once every two weeks to
tell me when the next column would come.
One of the few things in life Moorad could not do well was type. Therefore,
Lillian would type each and every column, let him edit the column,
incorporate those corrections and then send them off.
For the past month, no such message came. As Lillian was always so
meticulous when it came to sending the columns, I suspected the worst, yet
still hoped for the best.
It is with profound sadness that I know now there won’t be any more columns
by Moorad Mooradian, our longtime columnist, on page 19. Moorad and Harut
Sassounian, together, have led us to have a terrific opinion page, one which
I automatically designated `H&M’ on the page map I would draw up every
week.
It has been a page to which many people turn first.
Moorad was a charming man with a booming voice who was dedicated to his
family and his country. This at-times conservative man had a tremendously
open mind which could embrace opinions other than his own. In other words,
if you could present a logical viewpoint to him, he could be convinced,
without prejudice.
He had the posture of someone who has served in the armed forces – which
he
did proudly for decades. He was a natural teacher, enriching the lives of
students at West Point, George Mason and Yerevan State universities, as well
as his readers in this paper and others.
He was a man who was trained in the art of war, yet relished peace through
conflict negotiation. Had he been healthier, he would have been writing up
a
storm about the Protocols.
He and Lillian had a wonderful relationship, which after almost five decades
of marriage, still seemed fresh, yet with the depth of ease that living
together for such a long time creates.
They were a lovely team together and had raised a loving family.
It is fitting that his last column, which appeared in the July 18 edition,
was about a group that he was passionate about: The Armenia Tree Project.
Our condolences go to Lillian and their children, grandchildren and one
great-grandchild, as well as to all those in Virginia, Rhode Island and
Armenia, where they lived at various times and whose lives they touched.
I feel privileged to have known Moorad. Our thoughts and prayers are with
his family.
– Alin K. Gregorian