Biden poised to recognise Armenian genocide as Turkey left without friends

AHVAL News
April 7 2021

Turkey has spent millions of dollars on sometimes bizarre campaigns to dissuade the American government from calling the murder and expulsion of the vast majority of the Armenians in Anatolia during World War One a genocide.

For decades, the United States government has tiptoed around the issue, afraid of the fallout it could precipitate in U.S.-Turkish relations.

Ultimately, all this money and effort appears to have been a waste. At the end of 2019, the United States Congress and Senate passed a resolution to officially “(1) commemorate the Armenian Genocide, the killing of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923; (2) reject efforts to associate the U.S. government with efforts to deny the existence of the Armenian Genocide or any genocide; and (3) encourage education and public understanding about the Armenian Genocide.”

Now, statements coming from White House officials and President Joe Biden’s own history of supporting genocide recognition makes it likely that on April 24, Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, he too will officially use the term “genocide” to describe the fate of the Ottoman Armenian community.

Biden’s decision to break the trend of equivocation by his predecessors makes sense given his long history supporting resolutions like the one passed by Congress a year and a half ago. As a senator, Biden supported similar resolutions as far back as 1984. He was a co-sponsor of the 1990 resolution that spurred contentious debate between those opposed, led by Senator Robert Byrd, and those in favour, led by Senator Bob Dole.

Despite, or perhaps because of, his continued support for these ultimately failing resolutions, Biden has not wavered in his conviction that the U.S. government should recognise the Armenian Genocide. In a post on Medium to mark last year’s Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, then candidate Biden “pledge[d] to support a resolution recognising the Armenian Genocide and will make universal human rights a top priority for my administration”.

Experts agree that Biden is likely to make an official declaration referring to the mass death and deportation of Ottoman Armenians in Anatolia as a genocide. The consensus is that not only does he genuinely believe that the events constitute that term, but the current, perhaps historically, low point in U.S.-Turkish relations makes this decision more politically feasible.

“Previously when the Armenian Genocide bill would be up for discussion on the Hill there would be a flurry of various groups, from foreign policy analysts who defended Turkey for real-politik reasons to pro-Israel groups who saw Turkey as an ally to defence contractors who didn’t want to lose crucial arms sales,” said Daphe McCurdy, Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“That doesn’t really exist anymore or to the extent it does, these pro-Turkey groups don’t have a sympathetic ear among any U.S. policymakers whether on the Hill or in the administration,” McCurdy said.

Nicholas Danforth, a non-resident fellow at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, concurs:

“Turkey has no friends left in Washington, and it is increasingly hard to make a geopolitical case that Turkey is an important enough ally, that not angering Turkey is important enough, to block the resolution,” Danforth said.

A low point in bilateral relations may seem like the worst time to risk a statement on the genocide. Thus, it is perhaps surprising that the experts not only agree that if Biden does follow through with a genocide recognition statement, U.S.-Turkish relations will not be irrevocably damaged but some also feel that finally moving past the issue of recognition might actually improve relations in the long term.

“It’s something the Turks will get angry about, they will probably recall their newly arrived ambassador, maybe they will ask the U.S. ambassador to leave for a time, but at the end of the day, there are too many real, pressing issues that these two countries have to deal with that are very imminent, they are not about history, they are not symbolic, they are real issues,” said Alan Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

“If anything, because it’s the United States, there is going to be a lot of reasons to get past it,” he said.

“When it comes to the members of the Turkish-American diaspora who take their political cues from Ankara, the Biden administration’s recognition of the Armenian genocide could end up being a liberating development,” said Aykan Erdemir, Senior Director of the Turkey Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former member of the Turkish parliament.

“Until now, the bulk of the Turkish-American mobilisation in the United States has revolved around pushing back against various efforts to recognise the Armenian genocide,” Erdemir said.

“Once the issue is behind, the Turkish-American diaspora will have an opportunity to channelise its energies to more productive endeavours that will accrue positive dividends for themselves as well as for their countries of residence and origin.”

Some experts stress that Turkey sees the United States in different terms than EU countries, and that there is more symbolic weight to it taking this action, but that this was still not enough reason to believe that a permanent diplomatic breakdown was imminent. That of course does not mean that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will not take full advantage of any official statement by Biden in the service of domestic politics.

“Erdoğan is searching for any distraction from his political and economic weaknesses and will undoubtedly use this issue to do the same,” McCurdy said. “But at the end of the day, these antics will only get him so far if they don’t put food on people’s tables.

“That’s not to say that much of the Turkish public won’t be outraged by the decision, just that Erdoğan has been using anti-Americanism as a tool to garner political support for years and there are diminishing marginal returns to its effectiveness, especially as people’s economic plight increases.”

There will undoubtedly be segments of the Turkish population who are angry and offended by it if the president makes an official declaration using the term “genocide”, but Taner Akçam, a professor of history at Clark University, and one of the preeminent historians on the Armenian Genocide, cautioned that all news about how “average Turks” feel should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

“[The Turkish government] will put their position in the mouths of so-called ‘ordinary Turks’,” Akçam said. “Whatever we will see and we will hear about Turkish public reaction, will not be Turkish public reaction. If they allowed the free press in Turkey, public reaction would be totally different.”

For example, Akçam doubts that much of the ethnic Kurdish population in Turkey buy into Turkish government propaganda about what did or did not happen to the Armenians in Anatolia, given their own experience with violent cultural suppression, and subsequent government denial that it is happening.

Akçam also sees a wider cultural and political shift happening in Turkey, which is ultimately indicative of the weak international position the Turkish government now finds itself in.

“There is a basic change in Turkish society in understanding the Armenian Genocide. In the early days, before (prominent Armenian journalist) Hrant Dink’s assassination, in the 80s, 90s, we were the bad guy,” Akçam said. “We were dragged from courtroom to courtroom. We were attacked. There was a hate campaign against us. We were in a defensive position. Today, we won the psychological war in Turkey. Today, psychologically, the Turkish government is in a defensive position.”

This does not mean that the Turkish government is just going to give in to international pressure and overwhelming historical evidence and stop denying that the killing and deportations that wiped Armenians from Anatolia constitute a genocide.

Akçam likens genocide denial in Turkey to racism in the United States. “Denialism is a political structure,” one that can only be defeated by democratisation and significant changes to Turkish society, he said.

The fact that the U.S. government has now politicised the historical facts has set back progress toward any such shift.

“The tragedy of all of this is by not recognising the Armenian Genocide earlier, by waiting until U.S.-Turkish relations had deteriorated to this point, Washington has made it very easy for Erdoğan to turn around and say “look, they’re just saying this because they are angry at us now”, and this won’t prompt any kind of moral reckoning, this won’t prompt any kind of real, serious conversation in Turkey,” Danforth said.

“The refusal to take this step earlier when it would have been inconvenient, has irrevocably politicised it. I still think it is the right thing to do, but we should avoid feeling too good about it,” he said.

 

Turkey’s thirty-year genocide

MercatorNet
April 8 2021
The Armenian genocide is just one part of a decades-long tragedy, with many lessons to be learned.

The Thirty-Year Genocide: Turkey’s Destruction of Its Christian Minorities, 1894-1924
by Benny Morris and Dror Ze’evi
2019, 672 pp

Most students of history are aware of the Armenian Genocide, in which huge numbers of Armenian Christians were slaughtered by Ottoman Turk forces during World War I.  

In recent years, the Israeli historians Benny Morris and Dror Ze’evi sought to follow in the path of many others in investigating what happened during this period.  

Morris and Ze’evi came to believe that what we call the Armenian Genocide constitutes just one awful chapter within a ‘Thirty-Year Genocide’ which destroyed Turkey’s Christian community, and their 2019 book advances this argument.  

In the late 19th century, the population of modern-day Turkey was around 20 percent Christian. Three decades later, that was down to two percent. During the intervening period, between 1.5 and 2.5 million Christians were killed, with many others fleeing or being deported.  

Beginning in 1894, Armenians were targeted in a series of attacks, which set the stage for future and larger-scale atrocities. After the war ended, a new period of hostilities commenced in which the Turkish nationalists renewed their assault on the remaining Christians.  

“The destruction of the Christian communities was the result of deliberate government policy and the will of the country’s Muslim inhabitants,” Morris and Ze’evi argue. “The murders, expulsions, and conversions were ordered by officials and carried out by other officials, soldiers, gendarmes, policemen and, often, tribesmen and the civilian inhabitants of towns and villages. All of this occurred with the active participation of Muslim clerics and the encouragement of the Turkish press.”  

Rather than looking at this as the elimination of one group (the Armenians), the authors focus on the killing and exiling of the vast majority of the Greek Christian population as well as the Assyrians (groups belonging to a variety of Eastern churches, including the Chaldean Catholic Church).  

The enormity of the charge against the Ottoman and Turkish leadership is unquestionable, but the evidence which the authors provide is both compelling and heart-breaking. 

Long before the killing began, Europeans powers were concerned about the treatment of Christians in the decaying Ottoman Empire. 

As the Empire lost its European colonies and was driven back into Asia, anti-Christian animosity grew, as did the intensity of the persecution meted out to Christians by Kurdish tribes and others in the religiously-mixed areas of Eastern Anatolia.  

In 1894, under the sultanate of Abdülhamid II, the first explosion of mass violence resulted in at least 100,000 Armenians being killed in a series of coordinated atrocities directed by Ottoman state officials.  

What happened between 1894 and 1896 was a dress rehearsal for what was to come – although it was almost exclusively directed against Armenians, with other Christians being spared for the time being.  

Christian clergy and churches were especially targeted, and tens of thousands of Armenians were forced to convert to Islam on pain of death. 

As would become a pattern throughout the following decades, Armenian women were raped en masse and many were abducted as slaves.  

The half-hearted protestations of foreign governments aside, the fact that such a blow had been inflicted without any real consequences gave encouragement to those who dreamed of an empire without Christians. 

The reformist Young Turks who came to power in 1908 shared their predecessors’ hatred of Christians, and as the American ambassador in Constantinople Henry Morgenthau later noted, the Ottomans’ entry into the war in 1914 finally gave them the opportunity to start eliminating Armenians. 

Thus began the deportations, where vast columns of Armenian men, women and children were separated and forced to begin death marches into the desert, while being subjected to frequent attack or summary execution along the way.  

The book’s 506 pages are intensely difficult to read because of the seemingly endless series of abuses which the authors have catalogued across a wide geographic area.  

Elsewhere, Greeks were driven out or killed. As with the Armenians, paranoid Turks pointed to the risk that they would ally with the country’s enemies in a time of war.  

However, the slaughter or deportation of almost half a million Assyrian Christians – a thinly dispersed group with no separatist leanings – is definitive proof that the goal of the Turkish leadership was the annihilation of all Christians.  

The killing and deportation of Christians continued after the war under the direction of the Turkish nationalists led by the founder of the modern Turkish state, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. 

Atatürk is often thought to be a secularist, but as the authors show, he too used the language of holy war while directing atrocities against Christians.  

Though not directly implicated in the main genocide of the war years, the attitude of the ‘Father of all Turks’ would become that of the nation as a whole: “Whatever has befallen the non-Muslim elements living in our country is the result of the policies of separatism they pursued in a savage manner, when they allowed themselves to be made tools of foreign intrigues and abused their privileges.”  

Being Jewish, the authors are well-placed to assess the similarities between this genocide and that carried out by the Nazis. The reluctance of Turkish society to acknowledge these crimes – in sharp contrast to the experience of modern Germany – could be traced back to the active involvement which countless Turkish civilians had in the killings. 

Turkish ongoing genocide denial and the blaming of victims which Atatürk engaged in can also explain further acts of aggression against the tiny Christian minority since the 1920s.  

There are many other lessons which this chilling work can teach us.  

The history of the ‘Thirty-Year Genocide’ shows how low-level anti-Christian persecution can be dramatically escalated to the point where it poses an existential threat.  

It demonstrates the urgent need for what Pope Francis calls the “ecumenism of blood.” A group making up 20% of the population could have resisted more effectively had they worked together, and had other Christians not overlooked the anti-Armenian outrages which were the first salvo in a broader war.  

Politically, Ottoman Turkey’s genocidal policies are a rebuke to those who make a false equivalence between the opposing sides in WW1 (British forces succeeded in recovering around half of the kidnapped women and orphans from Turkish homes after the war), while the greater suffering of the Armenians compared to the Greeks suggests that the existence of a national homeland is of paramount importance to persecuted people in need of support – as Professor Yoram Hazony suggests, there may indeed be a moral virtue associated with nationalism.  

The greatest lesson of all is given by the authors, who note that “Thirty-Year Genocide can be seen as the most dramatic and significant chapter in the de-Christianization of the Middle East during the past two centuries,” a process which “is today nearing completion, as is the de-Christianization, demographically speaking, of Syria, Iraq and Palestine.”   

This too has passed without serious comment, and the fact that it has taken two Jewish academics to draw attention to the planned destruction of Turkey’s Christian communities a century ago is telling.  

“Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” Adolf Hitler is said to have asked, as he plotted the extermination of another tribe, the one which has produced these two outstanding historians. 

In today’s world, who, we might ask, speaks of the persecution which Christians endure, particularly in the region which is the cradle of the Faith?  

Benny Morris and Dror Ze’evi have shown where this persecution can lead, and it is time to take the threat seriously.

James Bradshaw works for an international consulting firm based in Dublin, and has a background in journalism and public policy. Outside of work, he writes for a number of publications, on topics including… More by James Bradshaw

CivilNet: Robert Kocharyan: Unjust Peace in Karabakh Will Not Last

CIVILNET.AM

08 Apr, 2021 09:04

By Emil Sanamyan

Asked if he would seek to overturn the outcome of last year’s war with Azerbaijan, Robert Kocharyan responded that “the Armenian army is currently in such a state that no person in sound mind will be thinking of revanche.” The former president was interviewed by Vladimir Pozner in the program that aired on Russia’s Channel 1 on April 5.

At the same time, Kocharyan believes it is possible to seek the return of some of the areas that were part of the Soviet-era Karabakh autonomous borders, and now controlled by Azerbaijan and ethnically cleansed of Armenians, through negotiations.

“If we want to end this conflict, we have to have a solution that is just,” Kocharyan said without specifying what that means; otherwise, unjust peace will not last long, he added.

Echoing the rhetoric of the Armenian government, Kocharyan praised the role of Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin in putting an end to the fighting last November.

Kocharyan led Nagorno Karabakh during the Armenian victory in the 1992-94 war and subsequently served as president of the Republic of Armenia from 1998 to 2008. According to opinion polls, he is the leading challenger to the incumbent prime minister Nikol Pashinyan in the early election expected on June 20.

ANC International Statement on Armenia-Turkey Relations

March 29, 2021



Armenian National Committee-International

Just last month, on February 11, the Armenian National Committee International issued a statement outlining the current authorities’ dangerous approaches vis-a-vis Turkey, after Foreign Minister Ara Aivazyan discussed Armenia-Turkey relations in Armenia’s National Assembly.

As such, an opinion was expressed that the Government of the Republic of Armenia was going to accept the status quo created by the Turkish-Azerbaijani axis in its aggression against the Republic of Artsakh, including the the occupation of a large parts of Artsakh, deportation and ethnic cleansing.

Second, the Armenian government is effectively acknowledging that there are no more pressing issues in Armenia-Turkey relations than the Karabakh issue and the authorities seem to be preparing to forget the policy of garnering international recognition of and reparations for the Armenian Genocide, as well as issues related to the Armenia-Turkey border.

As recently as March 16, the ARF Bureau, taking into consideration the statements of various officials, international-regional developments and its own information, strongly warned the leadership, which has lost its legitimacy and has handed over a large part of the homeland to the enemy, not to enter into such negotiations with Turkey that could allow it to achieve it 100-year-old goals.

Recent events, especially statements made by the prime minister, the secretary of the security council and the vice-speaker of the National Assembly, once again prove that the authorities of Armenia, who capitulated, are pursuing a succinct policy—guised as normalizing relations with Turkey and ending blockades—which aims to forget the historical past of our people, to renounce the international demand for recognition of the Armenian Genocide, to legally recognize the de facto Armenia-Turkey interstate border, to renounce the Karabakh issue, and with it the restoration of Artsakh’s territorial integrity and status, and to make the territory of the Republic of Armenia a geographical corridor connecting the two Turkish states.
We would like to emphasize that the Armenian authorities, speaking of a comprehensive unblocking of regional infrastructure, are directly accepting Turkey as a party to the Karabakh conflict, and view the opening of the Armenia-Turkey border only in the context of a pro-Turkish settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has been Ankara’s talking point for decades.

The person clinging the post of Armenia’s Prime Minister continues to make pedestrian assessments about the realities of Turkey’s anti-Armenian hostility. Whereas, it is evident that Armenians’ position is not a consequence of the equal historical footing between the Armenian and Turkish peoples, but rather Turkey’s planned annihilation of Armenians and their homeland. In its turn, Turkey’s hostile policy is conditioned by an imaginary plot for physical retribution by the Armenians against the Turkish people, but as a continuation of the centuries-old anti-Armenian policy of its predecessors, with the same pan-Turkish and neo-Ottoman goals. In other word, Turkey views us as an enemy, since Armenia is an obstacle to Turkey’s implementation of its expansionist policies and because we do not renounce our historical memory, identity, as we have shown in the past through our dignified approach.

It is extremely sad that these obvious realities, which are based on our people’s national pain and open wound, have to be explained to the person holding the post of the Prime Minister of Armenia.

It find it important to note that today Turkey continues to pursue an openly hostile policy toward the Republic of Armenia and all Armenians, the most obvious manifestation of which was the involvement of the Turkey’s military and government, as well as the overt and wide-spread inclusion of the Turkish armed forces in the recent Karabakh war.

The Armenian authorities have begun to manipulate the intelligence of the people with baseless and vain words about regional peace and coexistence. Armenia is the only country in the region that has been the stable guarantor of regional peace. Peace in the region has been broken as a result of Turkish-Azerbaijani aggression against us, and Armenia is the last country where peace should be preached. Our people know best the price of peace, but by the imperative of their history they know that undignified peace only paves the way for future bloody wars.

The Armenian authorities are shamelessly continuing this so-called false pretense of peace even at a time when high-ranking Turkish and Azerbaijani officials have openly expressed their ambitions for the territory of the Republic of Armenia.

As for the fate of the Armenia-Turkey border, it must be taken into account that the border was closed illegally by the Turkish state as a hostile act. Armenia did not play a role in closing the Armenia-Turkey border, so the Turkish state should take the first step in opening the border. In this context, Turkey expects Armenia to renounce the policy of genocide claims and the Karabakh issue, which, apparently, was achieved through the capitulating Armenian authorities.

We, once again, are warning the latter, that a government which denies the Armenian Genocide and has effectively resigned from the Karabakh issue is doomed in Armenia, as is such a policy. If the leadership kowtows to Turkish demands and attempts to enter into dubious negotiations with Turkey, at the expense of the people’s inalienable rights, our people will never allow that. As a consequence, we will have dark pages in our history devoted to pro-Turkish and treasonous leaders.

In order to ensure the security of the republics of Armenia and Artsakh and to defend our national interests, it is imperative that the leadership of Armenia immediately leaves and political forces with national inclinations take over the heavy burden of taking our country out of this difficult and dangerous predicament.

ANC International
March 29, 2021




Ventura County Library to mark Armenian History Month

Public Radio of Armenia
April 3 2021

 In honor of Armenian History Month, the Ventura County Library along with the Southern California Library Cooperative are continuing their “Be The Change” series with two events, Santa Barbara News Press reports.

On Thursday, political consultant and commentator Eric Hacopian will have a conversation with Salpi Ghazarian, the director of the USC Institute of Armenian Studies, in a pre-recorded video called “Armenia, Artsakh, Diaspora – Memory, Identity and Responsibility.”

Eric Hacopian is a 30-year veteran of American politics, having worked on campaigns from the local to the presidential level. For the past 22 years, he has been the principal at EDH & Associates, a Southern California-based Democratic consulting firm.

Salpi Ghazarian joined the USC Institute of Armenian Studies in 2014 to lead a global intellectual center that brings together the skills, training and passion of scholars, practitioners and leaders to address and resolve national and global challenges impacting communities in California, the U.S. and Armenia.

Then on April 10, author and lecturer Khatchig Mouradian will discuss his book, “The Resistance Network,” with filmmaker and screenwriter Eric Nazarian.  

“The Resistance Network” is the history of an underground network of humanitarians, missionaries, and diplomats in Ottoman Syria who helped save the lives of thousands during the Armenian Genocide. Khatchig Mouradian challenges depictions of Armenians as passive victims of violence and subjects of humanitarianism, demonstrating the key role they played in organizing a humanitarian resistance against the destruction of their people.

From Armenia and Azerbaijan, what can Australia learn?

Australia

The nature of warfare is dynamic. It endlessly renews itself to overcome the challenges presented by different terrains, enemies, situations, ideologies and technologies.

Let’s focus on just one of these key areas: technological change. Put simply, the rate of technological change in the 21st century has created dozens of new axes of warfare, many of which are insurmountable by conventional fighting forces.

Barring the cyber and information spheres, there few examples of where technology counts more than in the air. Nowadays, air-fighting is on the brink of a once in a lifetime strategic and technological transformation due to the symbiosis of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles, including suicide craft.

In a conventional sense, this was arguably observed for the first time during the recent Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, in which Armenia’s conventional fighting forces were challenged – and considerably overwhelmed – by the technologically superior Azeris.

Indeed, Armenia’s expensive conventional weaponry was simply unable to compete on a different military axis, and was thus beaten by cheaper and more replaceable Azeri UAVs. The lesson is simple: no matter how robust one’s conventional army may be, the rate of technological change ensures that units, hardware and strategies are being superseded at an increasing rate – and that it is imperative for modern militaries to diversify their portfolio of resources. So how can Australia learn from this case study?

Firstly, let’s compare the ADF to the military of one of our closest neighbours to provide some perspective. While Australia counts some 80,000 active and reserve defence force personnel, Indonesia (for the sake of comparison) has 400,000 active military personnel bolstered by 400,000 reservists. Meanwhile, Australia’s arsenal of 59 tanks pale in the face of Indonesia’s 300-500 (numbers vary due to source).

Unfortunately for Australia, we are not only numerically disadvantaged, but also technologically. Indonesia acquired their first armed UAVs in 2019, and President Joko Widodo has already expressed his desire to expedite the domestic production of long-range military drones to 2022. While our wheels are in motion, we lag behind our competitors.

CivilNet: As Armenia Raises Libel Penalties, Civil Society Warns of Chilling Effect

CIVILNET.AM

30 Mar, 2021 11:03

By Mark Dovich

Last week, Armenia’s legislature, the National Assembly, passed a controversial set of amendments to the Civil Code that substantially raise the maximum damages for insult and defamation. The bill, introduced by Vice Speaker Alen Simonyan, a close ally of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, raises the maximum penalty for defamation to 6 million drams (about $11,400) from 2 million drams ($3,800), while increasing the penalty for insult to 3 million drams ($5,500) from 1 million drams ($1,900). Seventy-six lawmakers voted in favor of the changes, while 40 voted against, and 3 abstained.

Simonyan has argued that the amendments “will provide additional guarantees for individuals to protect the dignity or business reputation of not only an individual, but also the media, from false and offensive attacks.” Nonetheless, the changes have been roundly criticized by domestic and international press freedom advocates alike, who have expressed fears that the amendments may have a chilling effect on press freedom in the country.

Prior to the introduction of the new changes, Armenian courts rarely sought maximum damages in libel suits. Moreover, in past cases, Armenian judges have ruled that media organizations convicted of insult or defamation are not to be charged the maximum penalty under the law, but rather a proportionate amount, “so as not to interfere with the normal operation of the media.”

This is precisely why many press freedom advocates have decried the amendments. Very few media organizations in Armenia, if any, could afford to pay the new maximum penalties for insult or defamation and continue their operations.

Under Armenian law, insult is defined as “a public _expression_ made with the aim of defaming honor, dignity, or business reputation through speech, image, sound, sign, or in any other way,” while libel or defamation is legally considered “the public presentation of such factual information about a person (statement of fact) that is untrue and discredits their honor, dignity, or business reputation.” Precedent set by Armenia’s Court of Cassation holds that the presence of a third person allows a potential libelous statement to be considered public.

Following the passage of the amendments, a group of Armenian press freedom organizations issued a joint public statement urging President Armen Sarkissian not to sign the bill into law and to send it instead to the Constitutional Court for further review. The Union of Journalists of Armenia have called on Human Rights Defender Arman Tatoyan to challenge the amendments’ constitutionality in court.

Meanwhile, Freedom House, the prominent U.S.-based democracy-focused organization, released a strongly worded statement warning that the changes “will stifle free _expression_ and threaten the financial viability of media outlets in the country.” The organization has called on “the Armenian authorities to take the concerns of civil society and media organizations seriously, and strike down this legislation.”

USCIRF highlights destruction of Armenian monuments in new report on Azerbaijan

Save

Share

 13:23,

YEREVAN, MARCH 20, ARMENPRESS. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has released a country update on religious freedom conditions in Azerbaijan, recommending that the U.S. Department of State place Azerbaijan on its Special Watch List (SWL) for its ongoing and systematic religious freedom violations, Armenpress reports citing Massis Post.

The report evaluates trends relevant to freedom of religion or belief in Azerbaijan since USCIRF commissioners and staff traveled to the country in early 2020. According the report, religious freedom in Azerbaijan remains severely impeded by problematic legislation, particularly the country’s 2009 law “On Freedom of Religious Beliefs,” which the government has shown little interest in revising.

The country update also details the many obstacles posed by mandatory registration and other restrictions on religious communities, the continued imprisonment of religious activists, and recent violations committed in the context of the renewed conflict over Nagorno Karabakh.

The report notes that during the renewed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh in 2020, the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shushi was hit twice by Azerbaijani forces. In December, Human Rights Watch concluded that the attack was intentional, constituting a war crime that should be investigated and prosecuted.

“The announcement of a ceasefire in early November formalized the territorial gains Azerbaijan had made militarily, and it set a staggered timeline for the cession of additional territories to Azerbaijan—raising concerns about the protection of various churches, monasteries, cemeteries, and other religious and cultural sites scattered throughout the region,” the report reads.

President Aliyev reportedly gave assurances to Russian President Vladimir Putin that the country would protect Christian churches in these areas; however, some sites, such as a cemetery situated alongside an Armenian church in Hadrut, have already been vandalized. In late November, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization reiterated a call for the protection of heritage sites in the area, and it proposed dispatching a preliminary field mission to produce an inventory of such sites “as a prerequisite for effective protection of the region’s heritage.”

Music: Armenian composer wins second prize at Basel Composition Competition

Public Radio of Armenia
March 8 2021

Composer, Associate Professor of Yerevan Komitas State Conservatory, conductor of Assonance Ensemble Artur Akshelyan has been awarded the second prize at Basel Composition Competition.

A total of 12 works were selected from more than 355 submitted scores. Orchestral works that have not yet been performed and have not yet been awarded a prize were eligible to be submitted. The compositions were selected by a top-class jury chaired by the Swiss composer Michael Jarrell. 

Artur Akshelyan’s “Three Pieces for Orchestra” will be performed by Sinfonieorchester Basel under the baton of Francesc Prat.

The jury awarded the 1st prize to Yiqing Zhu from China and the 3rd prize was awarded to Miguel Morate from Spain.

Artur Akshelyan was born in Yerevan on December 28, 1984, his first composition studies began at the Komitas State Conservatory with Vartan Adjemian followed by classes with Michael Jarrell and Luis Naon at  the Haute Ecole de Musique of Geneva (Switzerland), as well as working under Richard Cornell at Boston University in The USA.

He has collaborated with many Ensembles and orchestras across Europe and Canada including the Nouvel Ensemble Moderne (Montreal), Ensemble Intercontemporain (Paris), Ensemble Insomnio (Amsterdam), Arditti Quartet (London), Ensemble Moderne Lemanic, Ensemble Contrechamps (Genève), Musique Nouvelles (Bruxelles),  Ensemble Divertimento (Milan), Ensemble Pre-art etc. Featuring festivals: “Musica Nova” in Helsinki, “Festival Amadeus”, “Gaia Festival” in Geneva,  Shanghai New Music Week,  Gaudeamus New Music Week in Amsterdam, Abeldoben music festival and others.

He is a winner of several international awards including prizes at NEM Young Composers International Forum, Geneva competition, “Gaudeamus prize” Pre -Art etc. Recent commissions are from the festival “Dilijan chamber music series”, Festival Flagey, Pre-art, Orpheus competition, Foundation Minkoff.