Author: Chmshkian Vicken

PRESENT-DAY PROBLEMS OF THE ARMENIAN-TURKISH CONFLICT
(Interviews)

g/?art=46&p=22&l=eng

Armen Ayvazyan, PhD
Director, "Ararat" Center for Strategic Research
Yerevan, Armenia
+(37410) 274-833
[email protected]
www.ararat-cent er.org

Some of the Responses

The Ararat Center for Strategic Research is running a series of
interviews about the latest interstate developments between Armenia
and Turkey. The list of participants includes representatives of
the general public, as well as state officials, politicians, public
figures and experts.

Anyone willing to participate in the survey can answer the questions at
the following address: [email protected]. In your response, please
indicate your name, age (optional), profession and place of residence.

The survey covers three themes, each based on a specific example:
1. Turkey’s policies on the Armenian Genocide issue.

2. Turkey’s stance on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

3. The invitation by the Government of the Republic of Armenia to
Turkey to parti­ci­pate in the construction of the new nuclear
power plant in Armenia.

Theme 1: Turkey’s policies on the Armenian Genocide issue Since
December 2007, the Ministry of Education of Turkey has been showing a
film in Turkish schools, which conveys that historically, Armenians
killed the Turkish people. The film has already been seen by about
12 million Turkish students, in cluding students in elementary
grades. 600,000 copies of the film’s DVD were distributed to Schools.

1.1. How do you assess this move by the government of Turkey?

I have seen the DVD. It is extremely anti-Armenian. I believe the
move was a Turkish ultra-nationalist reaction to "overtures" being
planned by the AKA party towards Armenia.

1.2. What objectives does Turkey pursue by this action?

To reinforce the false ethos laying at base of the Turkish
socialization process.

1.3. What are the likely consequences of this action?

Continued fascist indoctrination of Turkish school children.

1.4. Why is the government of Armenia staying silent about this
Turkish initiative?

Either the Armenian government feels it is not worth expending any
effort in reacting to the continued anti-Armenian currents running
through Turkish society, or, they haven’t thought about it well enough
to architect a response, or most likely both.

1.5. How should the Armenian authorities respond to this action?

The Armenian government should have intelligence studies on the
Turkish socialization process. Based on those studies and knowing the
interests of the Armenian people, the government should have generated
a response exposing this false, anti-Armenian indoctrination of young
people. This response should have been made to international bodies
with the intelligent use of international press and human right
groups. This is a short answer to an endemic issue.=0 D

Theme 2: Turkey’s stance on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Officials in Armenia and Turkey talk about the development of
Armenian-Turkish relations. At the same time, on February 19, 2009,
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan stated that: a) With regard to the
Karabakh conflict, the positions and policies of Turkey and Azerbaijan
are completely identical; b) Turkey and Azerbaijan have worked out
this policy and are implementing it jointly.

At the same time, Azerbaijan does not hide its goal to capture
Karabagh.

2.1. What conclusions can be drawn from this statement by Erdogan?

Clearly, Turkish policies have not changed regarding Karabakh in 15
plus years. Actually, they have not changed since WWI.

2.2. Why have the authorities and the political parties of Armenia
not officially responded to this statement?

They either do not feel it is worth the time and effort or are not
capable of articulating what should have been a clear foreign policy
principle, or again, both.

2.3. How should the government of Armenia have responded to Erdogan’s
statement?

End "talks" with the Turkish government coordinated with proper
diplomatic public relations. "Talks" can resume when Turkey changes
its policy.

2.4. After this statement by Erdogan, should the authorities of
Armenia continue the policy of rapprochement with Turkey?

No, see 2.3.

Theme 3: The invitati on by the Government of the Republic of Armenia
to Turkey to parti­ci­pate in the construction of the new nuclear
power plant in Armenia

3.1. In the context of the questions discussed above, how do you
assess the February 21, 2009 statement by the Armenian Prime Minister,
effectively inviting Turkey to participate in the construction of
the new nuclear power plant in Armenia?

Foolish and void of principles that are in the best interest of the
Armenian people. Even if the statement is actually political posturing,
it is ill conceived.

3.2. What will Armenia gain from Turkey’s participation in the Armenian
nuclear power plant construction?

Armenia would gain Turkish control over parts of its strategic
infrastructure. In making such a statement, the Armenian government
could have been sending signals to Russia that it has [perceived]
options other than a strict strategic relationship with Russia.

3.3. What national security problems are likely to arise if Turkey does
participate in the construction of the nuclear power plant in Armenia?

Clearly, Armenia would be at risk of Turkish blackmail. Further,
both Turkey and Russia would battle over influence in Armenia, with
Armenia not in control of a strategic element of its national survival.

3.4. Why did the Armenian Prime Minister, on the 12th of March (20 days
after his first statement), change his position, stating that Turkey
is expected to particip ate only financially, through=2 0the sale of
some shares of the new nuclear power plant to Turkish companies?

The Armenian government was most likely embarrassed when the original
position was exposed by thinking people.

3.5. Do you support the idea of selling shares of the new Armenian
nuclear power plant to Turkish companies?

No, never.

Respondent: DAVID DAVIDIAN System Architect / Technical Intelligence
Analyst Belmont, MA, USA

Present-Day Problems of the Armenian-Turkish Conflict (Interviews)

The Ararat Center for Strategic Research is running a series of
interviews about the latest interstate developments between Armenia
and Turkey. The list of participants includes representatives of
the general public, as well as state officials, politicians, public
figures and experts.

Anyone willing to participate in the survey can answer the questions at
the following address: [email protected]. In your response, please
indicate your name, age (optional), profession and place of residence.

The survey covers three themes, each based on a specific example:
1. Turkey’s policies on the Armenian Genocide issue.

2. Turkey’s stance on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

3. The invitation by the Government of the Republic of Armenia to
Turkey to parti¬ci¬pate in the construction of the new nuclear
power plant in Armenia.

Theme 1: Turkey’s policies on the Armenian Genocide issue Since
December 2007, the Ministry of E ducation of Turkey has been showing
a film in Turkish schools, which conveys that historically, Armenians
killed the Turkish people. The film has already been seen by about
12 million Turkish students, including students in elementary grades.

600,000 copies of the film’s DVD were distributed to Schools.

1.1. How do you assess this move by the government of Turkey?

This is the latest of a series of actions put into force in the
Turkish educational system. The AK party government as well as the
military-political elite of Turkey would like to counterbalance the
effects of the recent liberalization processes and external influences
on the upcoming generations of the populace.

1.2. What objectives does Turkey pursue by this action?

It signals to all – Turks and external powers – that it will not stop
fighting the genocide issue and intends to deny any advantage to the
Armenian side in any negotiation in the long run.

1.3. What are the likely consequences of this action?

It strengthens Turkey’s hand internally and externally. It helps
address the somewhat muted defeatist mood in Turkey and among Turkey’s
supporters in recent years. It also aims to make Armenian efforts in
this area much difficult, making it easier for Armenians to capitulate
in all areas.

1.4. Why is the government of Armenia staying silent about this
Turkish initiative?

Historically, successive Armenian governments have not been vocal about
Turkey’s anti-Armenian policies20aimed at Armenia or at the Armenian
individual. They all seem be more pre-occupied with "navigating"
in the present than putting in efforts into future strategy.

1.5. How should the Armenian authorities respond to this action?

They should raise the issue of Turkey’s policies and its consequences
bilaterally with Turks as well as with third party powers.

Theme 2: Turkey’s stance on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Officials in Armenia and Turkey talk about the development of
Armenian-Turkish relations. At the same time, on February 19, 2009,
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan stated that: a) With regard to the
Karabakh conflict, the positions and policies of Turkey and Azerbaijan
are completely identical; b) Turkey and Azerbaijan have worked out
this policy and are implementing it jointly.

At the same time, Azerbaijan does not hide its goal to capture
Karabagh.

2.1. What conclusions can be drawn from this statement by Erdogan?

Turkey’s policies regarding the realization of Armenia’s existence only
as an appandage of Turkey has stayed consistent for nine decades now.

2.2. Why have the authorities and the political parties of Armenia
not officially responded to this statement?

See 1.4 above.

2.3. How should the government of Armenia have responded to Erdogan’s
statement?

Armenia should tell Turkey that Armenia cannot accept=2 0Turkey as
a dealmaker and a party to the conflict at the same time and raise
the issue internationally.

2.4. After this statement by Erdogan, should the authorities of
Armenia continue the policy of rapprochement with Turkey?

Armenia should reduce contacts with official Turkey until Turkey
genuinely re-evaluates its policies.

Theme 3: The invitation by the Government of the Republic of Armenia
to Turkey to parti¬ci¬pate in the construction of the new nuclear
power plant in Armenia

3.1. In the context of the questions discussed above, how do you
assess the February 21, 2009 statement by the Armenian Prime Minister,
effectively inviting Turkey to participate in the construction of
the new nuclear power plant in Armenia?

This makes it difficult to bring forth the Turkish policies regarding
Armenia when needed as neither that offer nor Armenian complaints will
be taken seriously by anyone. On the other hand, imagine the free
publicity we would get if the Armenian government made this offer
with a necessary demand of complete reversal of Turkish policies
about Armenia.

3.2. What will Armenia gain from Turkey’s participation in the Armenian
nuclear power plant construction?

I cannot imagine anything to be gained by the Armenian public from a
Turkish participation. There is only one thing that Turkey can offer
to Armenia that other countries cannot offer: its re-evaluation of
its anti-Armenian policies .. And this is not forthcoming.

3.3. What nationa l security problems are likely to arise if Turkey
does participate in the construction of the nuclear power plant
in Armenia?

Strategic concerns about the power plant aside, Turkey will learn to
expect deals without making any concessions to Armenia.

3.4. Why did the Armenian Prime Minister, on the 12th of March (20
days after his first statement), change his position, stating that
Turkey is expected to participate only financially, through the sale
of some shares of the new nuclear power plant to Turkish companies?

That is not an important change of position.

3.5. Do you support the idea of selling shares of the new Armenian
nuclear power plant to Turkish companies?

Obviously, no.

RESPONDENT: HAGOP HACHIKIAN profession/position: information technology
place of residence: Watertown, MA, USA 3 /23/2009

Present-Day Problems of the Armenian-Turkish Conflict (Interviews)

The Ararat Center for Strategic Research is running a series of
interviews about the latest interstate developments between Armenia
and Turkey. The list of participants includes representatives of
the general public, as well as state officials, politicians, public
figures and experts.

Anyone willing to participate in the survey can answer the questions at
the following address: [email protected]. In your response, please
indicate your name, age (optional), profession and place of residence.

The survey20covers three themes, each based on a specific example:
1. Turkey s policies on the Armenian Genocide issue.

2. Turkey’s stance on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

3. The invitation by the Government of the Republic of Armenia to
Turkey to parti¬ci¬pate in the construction of the new nuclear
power plant in Armenia.

Theme 1: Turkey’s policies on the Armenian Genocide issue Since
December 2007, the Ministry of Education of Turkey has been showing a
film in Turkish schools, which conveys that historically, Armenians
killed the Turkish people. The film has already been seen by about
12 million Turkish students, including students in elementary
grades. 600,000 copies of the film’s DVD were distributed to Schools.

1.1. How do you assess this move by the government of Turkey?

This DVD was inserted in TIME magazine few years ago. Armenian
organizations obliged Time magazine to insert a counter documentary DVD
on the Armenian genocide with a bonus interview of Dr Ternon. Now the
Deep state in Turkey is striking back. Armenia, directly or indierctly,
must react.

1.2. What objectives does Turkey pursue by this action?

The same thing decided in the 1930s with the establisment of Turk
Tarih Kurumu (TTK): falsify the history to back the theory of ‘United
Turkish nation’ initiated by Kemal.

1.3. What are the likely consequences of this action?

Brain washing the new generations because the "Lie must go on".

1.4. Why is the government of Armenia staying silent about this
Turkish initiative?

They asked to a camel :" why your neck is not straight?". He answered:
"What a question ! What part of my body is straight ?"

1.5. How should the Armenian authorities respond to this action?

Putting in place and financing an Armenia-Spyurk counter information
and communication center, as the Turkish state, even if it does not
have the same financial level.

Theme 2: Turkey’s stance on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Officials in Armenia and Turkey talk about the development of
Armenian-Turkish relations. At the same time, on February 19, 2009,
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan stated that: a) With regard to the
Karabakh conflict, the positions and policies of Turkey and Azerbaijan
are completely identical; b) Turkey and Azerbaijan have worked out
this policy and are implementing it jointly.

At the same time, Azerbaijan does not hide its goal to capture
Karabagh.

2.1. What conclusions can be drawn from this statement by Erdogan?

Whether Islamist or nationalist, the foreign policy of Turkey toward
Armenia does not change an iota: waiting for the first occasion to
swallow Karabagh and then Armenia.

2.2. Why have the authorities and the political parties of Armenia
not officially responded to this statement?

I think, maybe I’m wrong, that authorities generally do not have an
autonomous voice on foreign policy in gener al and on this Karabagh
issue in particular.

As to political parties, what par ties? As to our European starndards,
there is no real "political" party yet in Armenia.

2.3. How should the government of Armenia have responded to Erdogan’s
statement?

At the minimum stating the fact that they can not have a double
language when Babacan talking to Nalbandian then Erdogan talking to
public on the same issue. In his late conference in Paris, March 10,
Nalbandian stated that they were on very good ground with Babacan
through more than 10 meetings in last months.

2.4. After this statement by Erdogan, should the authorities of
Armenia continue the policy of rapprochement with Turkey?

Continue to speak: yes, if not there is no place to diplomacy. I do
not know what’s the real definition of "rapprochement".

Theme 3: The invitation by the Government of the Republic of Armenia
to Turkey to parti¬ci¬pate in the construction of the new nuclear
power plant in Armenia

3.1. In the context of the questions discussed above, how do you
assess the February 21, 2009 statement by the Armenian Prime Minister,
effectively inviting Turkey to participate in the construction of
the new nuclear power plant in Armenia?

I asked the question to Nalbandian at the Paris March 10th conference
underlinig the sensitivity of the subject due to security and
what Armenia was hoping to gain from a Turkish participation. H e
answered that the partners are, USA, France, Russia and Armenia. As
to Turkey,20it’s one of the numerous partners wishing to participate
to this project. Their demand is at study as the others.

3.2. What will Armenia gain from Turkey’s participation in the Armenian
nuclear power plant construction?

Nothing but trouble.

3.3. What national security problems are likely to arise if Turkey does
participate in the construction of the nuclear power plant in Armenia?

I’m not a specialist of nuclear projects, but the simple logic asks
that you can not give, even a little part of control, to a state that
did not normalize its relations and seems like a threat up to date.

3.4. Why did the Armenian Prime Minister, on the 12th of March (20
days after his first statement), change his position, stating that
Turkey is expected to participate only financially, through the sale
of some shares of the new nuclear power plant to Turkish companies????

3.5. Do you support the idea of selling shares of the new Armenian
nuclear power plant to Turkish companies?

No.

Respondent: VAROUJAN SIRAPIAN Age: + 60 President of INSTITUT
TCHOBANIAN / Editor of Europe & Orient Paris, France 20/03/2009

Present-Day Problems of the Armenian-Turkish Conflict (Interviews)

The Ararat Center for Strategic Research is running a series of
interviews about the latest interstate developments between Armenia
and=2 0 Turkey. The list of participants includes representatives
of the general public, as well a s state officials, politicians,
public figures and experts.

Anyone willing to participate in the survey can answer the questions at
the following address: [email protected]. In your response, please
indicate your name, age (optional), profession and place of residence.

The survey covers three themes, each based on a specific example:
1. Turkey’s policies on the Armenian Genocide issue.

2. Turkey’s stance on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

3. The invitation by the Government of the Republic of Armenia to
Turkey to parti¬ci¬pate in the construction of the new nuclear
power plant in Armenia.

Theme 1: Turkey’s policies on the Armenian Genocide issue Since
December 2007, the Ministry of Education of Turkey has been showing a
film in Turkish schools, which conveys that historically, Armenians
killed the Turkish people. The film has already been seen by about
12 million Turkish students, including students in elementary
grades. 600,000 copies of the film’s DVD were distributed to Schools.

1.1. How do you assess this move by the government of Turkey?

A sad, but typical and consistent, measure by the Turkish state to
perpetuate the Genocide of the Armenians of 1915. First, ethnically
cleanse the population, kill as many as possible, then Turkify the
orphans and built a modern state on the bones of the dead, and then
d eny. The last phase is to blame the victims.

1.2. What objectives does Turkey pursue by this ac tion?

Prepare the next generation to continue internal hatred of Armenians,
possibly to justify continued aggression against Armenia (blockade,
acts of war etc).

1.3. What are the likely consequences of this action?

Makes it more difficult to come to terms with the past and engender
any trust in Armenians. Adds insult to injury. Increases conflict
between the majority racist society and the minority (in danger of
becoming insignificant) of those who wish to face the facts and deal
truthfully with Turkish identity and past ghosts.

1.4. Why is the government of Armenia staying silent about this
Turkish initiative?

Armenia’s government is weak and under pressure from the West. As
such it often caves in to Turkish pressure, overt or inferred.

1.5. How should the Armenian authorities respond to this action?

Armenia’s government probably risks less than perceived by taking
a more disciplined and vigilant stance. Turkey shouldn’t be given
carte blanche to rewrite history, and this is not only Armenia’s
responsibility to bring Turkey into the spotlight.

Theme 2: Turkey’s stance on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Officials in Armenia and Turkey talk about the development of
Armenian-Turkish relations. At the same time, on February 19, 2009,
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan stated that: a) With regard to the
Karabakh conflict, the positions and policies of Turkey and Azerbaijan
are completely identical; b) Turkey and A zerbaijan have worked out
this policy and are implementing it jointly.

At the same time, Azerbaijan does not hide its goal to capture
Karabagh.

2.1. What conclusions can be drawn from this statement by Erdogan?

Turkey is a party to the conflict, and has no business posturing as
a third party.

2.2. Why have the authorities and the political parties of Armenia
not officially responded to this statement?

Unclear, and probably for different reasons. Additionally, see answer
to 1.4 above.

2.3. How should the government of Armenia have responded to Erdogan’s
statement?

See answer to 1.5 above. Call a spade a spade, and reject all efforts
by Turkey to "broker peace" in this conflict.

2.4. After this statement by Erdogan, should the authorities of
Armenia continue the policy of rapprochement with Turkey?

No.

Theme 3: The invitation by the Government of the Republic of Armenia
to Turkey to parti¬ci¬pate in the construction of the new nuclear
power plant in Armenia

3.1. In the context of the questions discussed above, how do you
assess the February 21, 2009 statement by the Armenian Prime Minister,
effectively inviting Turkey to participate in the construction of
the new nuclear power plant in Armenia?

Incomprehensible. Some Armenians seem to h ave learned little from
their history.

3.2. What will Armenia gain from Turkey’s participation in the Armenian
nuclear power plant construction?

A growing Turkish headache.

3.3. What national security problems are likely to arise if Turkey does
participate in the construction of the nuclear power plant in Armenia?

Too many to enumerate. I cannot understand any upside to this position.

3.4. Why did the Armenian Prime Minister, on the 12th of March (20
days after his first statement), change his position, stating that
Turkey is expected to participate only financially, through the sale
of some shares of the new nuclear power plant to Turkish companies?

The change in position indicates confusion on the issue by the PM.

3.5. Do you support the idea of selling shares of the new Armenian
nuclear power plant to Turkish companies?

I am unfamiliar with the share-purchase terms, but despite any
degree of "open-to-the-public" parameters, I think that the Armenian
government should not be actively soliciting Turkish ownership of
national security institutions on Armenian soil.

Respondent: ARAM HAJIAN Age: 39 Professor place of residence: Yerevan

TUSIAD HEAD SENDS LETTER TO OBAMA ON ARMENIAN RESOLUTION

Today’s Zaman
March 26 3009
Turkey

Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen’s Association (TUSIAD)
Chairwoman Arzuhan Dogan Yalcındag has sent a letter to US President
Barack Obama saying the US Congress’ approval of a resolution for
the official recognition of Armenian genocide allegations in a period
when Turkey and Armenia are getting closer would be unfortunate.

Yalcındag said issues related to Armenian genocide allegations should
be resolved by Armenia and Turkey. She stated that it would be more
correct to take initiatives which will strengthen US-Turkey relations
than those which will have a negative effect on bilateral relations
in a period when US-Turkey cooperation is most needed. "It would be
better to act in accordance with common interests aiming to bring
peace and welfare to people rather than focusing on a narrow agenda,"
she noted in the letter.

In addition to the letter, Yalcındag sent a report emphasizing that
Armenian theses on genocide allegations are one-sided. The report
reflects the Turkish approach to the issue. She sent copies of the
letter to US Vice President Joe Biden, US Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security
Adviser James Jones.

TIGRAN TOROSIAN: ARMENIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS WILL FAIL TO RECEIVE MORE THAN 40% VOTES IN YEREVAN COUNCIL OF ELDERS ELECTIONS

Noyan Tapan
March 26, 2009

YEREVAN, MARCH 26, NOYAN TAPAN. According to Tigran Torosian, the
former RA National Assembly Speaker, currently an independent deputy,
if the Armenian National Congress (ANC) and Zharangutiun (Heritage)
ran for Yerevan Council of Elders elections with a common list,
the opposition would be able to receive over 40% votes. However,
as T. Torosian said at the March 26 press conference, at present,
when ANC runs for the elections individually, it will fail to receive
more than 40% votes, while parties making part of the ruling coalition
are in more favorable condition. In his words, very probably after the
elections the pro-governmental forces will once more make a coalition
after the council of elders is formed.

In response to the question of why before any election oppositionists
unlike the authorities fail to come to an agreement, T. Torosian said
that those being in power are afraid of losing the power, and that
fear unites them.

And, according to his observation, what opposition can lose regards
the future. "In this case, in my opinion, Zharangutiun was treated
non-correctly: they presented the list to Zharangutiun and said:
"here are your places, you may agree to them or you may not,"
T. Torosian said.

HAMAZKAYIN FORUM 2009 IN ARMENIA: CALLING ALL ARMENIAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
By Lalai Manjikian

40890_3/26/2009_1
Thursday March 26, 2009

For the past 14 years, the Hamazkayin Student Cultural Forum has
been bringing young Armenian university students from all over the
world together to discover and share their Armenian heritage directly
from the source. Students from North and South America, Australia,
Europe, Armenia, and Artsakh (Karabakh) converge in Yerevan for an
intense two-week journey through the immensely rich cultural landscape
of Armenia.

This summer program, specifically tailored for university students
of Armenian descent, entails complete cultural immersion and exposes
the participants to the creme de la creme of Armenian art and culture,
both classic and contemporary. Guided visits include trips to various
Armenian monasteries dating from medieval times, museums such as
the National Gallery of Armenia, National History Museum, Genocide
Museum, Aram Khachaturian Museum, Parajanov Museum, and Martiros
Saryan House-Museum. The Hamazkayin Forum even offers special access
to performances by the National Opera or by such ensembles as the
Sayat Nova folkloric music ensemble. Such unique events are followed
with a question and discussion period, allowing participants to more
closely learn about traditional Armenian culture.

Official visits to both the American University of Armenia and
Yerevan State University are also included in the program, allowing
the students to discover the college scene in the homeland. Daily
lectures by prominent Armenian scholars from the diaspora and Armenia
create opportunities to analyze and engage with questions such as
Armenian identity, language, religion, and history.

A visit to Armenia’s army battalions grants participants a rare glimpse
into the country’s military. Other excursions include the Tzaghgatzor
Summer Camp for children and the Armenian village of Aramous, where
Hamazkayin actively participates in the development of the village
and its school. After catching a play or concert, the participants
are bound to have a good time at one of Yerevan’s many restaurants,
where live Armenian music and dancing make the night complete.

Forum participants from various parts of the diaspora, as well as
from Armenia and Artsakh, bring their individual perspectives and
backgrounds to various issues, while new friendships and bonds are
created–all in an unforgettable and dynamic social atmosphere. The
sheer amount of local cultural and artistic talent found in Armenia is
at once mind-boggling as it is inspiring. And the Hamazkayin Forum
succeeds in exposing these treasures to the Armenian youth, who
undoubtedly leave with a renewed sense of their cultural identity,
ready to broaden their own interest and commitment towards Armenian
culture throughout the world.

This summer, come join the Hamazkayin family, along with fellow
Armenian university students from all over the Armenian Diaspora,
in Yerevan from July 13 to 16.

TIMES ARE CHANGING IN BOURJ HAMMOUD
By Aline-Sophia Hirseland

The Daily Star
Saturday, March 14, 2009

First, it was swampland, then a safe haven, followed by a few
decades of being a reservoir for the working class of Greater Beirut,
mostly Shiites and Palestinians. During the Civil War people left,
while today it has become a meeting-place of a new working class,
from Ethiopia to Sri Lanka.

And throughout all these phases, it has been synonymous with Armenians.

The town of Bourj Hammoud sits just east of Beirut by the seaside,
bordered by Amarat Chalhoub and Sin al-Fil, and the Beirut
neighborhoods of Nahr and Achrafieh. The Bourj Hammoud we know
today was founded by Armenian refugees who escaped from the violence
unleashed in the Ottoman Empire in 1915. They were given the permission
to populate the till-then swampy area, and in the following years, more
and more Armenians joined the community after arriving from Turkey, and
particularly Cilicia, an Armenian stronghold in southeastern Anatolia.

The original Armenian congregations were refugee "camps" in which
people of the same geographical origin generally gathered, such as Sis,
Marash, Adana, Tiro and Sanjak.

Shiites started to migrate to Nabaa, the southern part of Bourj
Hammoud that is adjacent to Sin al-Fil, in the middle of the 20th
century. Bourj Hammoud was at first part of a bigger municipality,
together with Jdeideh and Sadd al-Bushrieh, as it was then very
thinly populated.

In 1951 it became an independent municipality and during the middle
decades of the 20th century, thousands of internal migrants, mainly
Shiites from the Bekaa and the South, along with stateless people
like Palestinians, began to congregate in the Bourj Hammoud region,
filling the ranks of Greater Beirut’s working class.

Before the Civil War, the population rose to several hundred thousand
people in the wider East Beirut suburbs centered around Bourj Hammoud,
but the events of 1975-1976 led to a quick depopulation. Most
non-Armenians and non-Christians in Bourj Hammoud left as the
Civil War’s massacres took place around them in Tel al-Zaatar and
Karantina. Imam Musa Sadr finally brokered an exodus from Nabaa,
and Bourj Hammoud lost much of its diversity.

The war years took their toll on the Armenian-dominated community,
through emigration and migration to other places inside Lebanon. Bourj
Hammoud today remains densely populated and has a mixed residential,
commercial and industrial aspect. Its goldsmith industry is widely
known, but local enterprises also produce shoes, bags and clothes. Not
surprisingly, it’s the place to visit if you want to pick up imported
goods from the independent state of Armenia.

Raffi Kokoghlanian, Bourj Hammoud’s deputy mayor, says the Armenian
community remains very grateful that Lebanon took in his people. They
enjoy religious freedom and were able to build their schools,
charitable associations and even a university (Haigazian).

Lebanon has given us a lot, and we want to give something back,"
says Kokoghlanian, arguing that the "genocide" has been a reason
for Armenians to avoid conflicts and remain a very closed community,
at least until recently. In the Civil War, Armenians tried to stay
neutral. "Bourj Hammoud was an example for friendly coexistence
between the confessions," says Kokoghlanian.

The experience of what most Armenians call "genocide" made them very
aware of their identity as a people and of the danger of losing
this identity. This is why, until recently, Armenians would avoid
renting property to non-Armenians, as they wanted Bourj Hammoud to
remain predominantly Armenian. Furthermore, mixed marriages between
Armenians and non-Armenians were rare. But this is changing.

Azadouhi Azadian is in her 80s and has lived in Bourj Hammoud all
her life. In the old days, she relates, there were no foreigners in
the community, only Armenians like herself. After the Civil War,
many people left and spread out, to all corners of the world. And
in the last decade or so, Lebanese Shiites have begun moving back,
joined by the country’s foreign workers; Egyptian Muslims, Buddhists
from Sri Lanka, and Orthodox Ethiopians. Storefronts with the flag
of the Philippines and languages of Sri Lanka are now common sights.

An Armenian high school student who gave his name as Steve says
most of his neighbors are Arabs, mainly Christians, while there are
also some Syrians living in his part of Bourj Hammoud. Even though
the relationships with non-Lebanese are friendly, he remarks: "We
don’t go to their houses, but we greet them." He personally has only
Armenian friends.

Grace Baboyan, a student of Information System Management at the
Lebanese American University, who has grown up in Bourj Hammoud, sees
the Ethiopians who shuttle daily between their workplaces in wealthier
neighborhoods and Bourj Hammoud, where the rents are noticeably lower
than elsewhere in Greater Beirut.

She says that nowadays, Arabs and Armenians have a lot of contact
with each other, they establish friendships and the number of mixed
marriages is increasing, even though these marriages remain limited
mostly to those between Christians. "Now we are losing our fear,"
she says.

Some Arabs have attended Armenian schools and learned the Armenian
language there. Earlier generations of Armenians didn’t speak Arabic
very well, while today’s generation knows Arabic much better. Baboyan
observed that Armenians have begun to sell their houses to
non-Armenians, which is why Shiites have returned in recent years.

Azadian says that the relationships with Arab Christians are very
good. After the Civil War when the economy was struggling, the
communities helped each other out: "If someone had a bakery, for
example, he would bake some extra bread and gave it to the Armenians
for free."

For the 80-something Azadian, Bourj Hammoud’s services have definitely
improved in the last few decades: the shopping centers have become
better equipped, the products are of better quality and many people
are attracted to the neighborhood’s shopping districts, whether they
need to pick up a kilo of basterma or a kilo of gold.

The benefits of public works projects and renovated pedestrian
streets have helped Bourj Hammoud, whose municipality appears to be
ever-present – its uniformed traffic policemen are perhaps the most
obvious sign of this, when one drives through the town.

Every time [the municipality] has money it does something, because
everybody loves Bourj Hammoud," Azadian says.

SOLD SHARES TO "GAZPROM"

A1+
08:38 pm | March 24, 2009

Economy

The "Itera International Energy" LTD-shareholder of the "ArmRusGazard"
CJSC-has sold 2,800,000 ordinary nominal shares to "GazProm" OJSC
(large shareholder of "ArmRusGazard"). This makes up 4.45% of the
regulatory capital of "ArmRusGazard" CJSC and as a result, "GazProm"
currently owns 80% of shares at "ArmRusGazard".

The deal was registered at the "Armenian Central Depository" OJSC on
2009 March 12, as informed by the press service of "ArmRusGazard".

KAREN SHAKHNAZAROV AWARDED FOR INVESTMENT IN WORLD CINEMATOGRAPHY

Panorama.am
12:11 25/03/2009

Russian filmmaker, producer and screenwriter Karen Shakhnazarov was
awarded for his investment in world cinematography in Russian films
"Spring" festival in Pariz, Russian media report.

According to the source, 30 Russian films were shown to the French
audience in the frames of the festival. And Karen Shakhnazarov was
awarded for his investment in the international Russian cinematography.

"COUNTRIES SOUTH OF THE CAUCASUS IN MEDIEVAL MAPS – ARMENIA, GEORGIA AND AZERBAIJAN" BOOK PUBLISHED

PanARMENIAN.Net
23.03.2009 20:28 GMT+04:00

According to the author Rouben Galichian, the intent of this work is to
familiarize the reader with medieval cartography on Armenia, Georgia
and Arran (Caucasian Albania, or present Republic of Azerbaijan),
situated south of the Caucasus range. It is arranged in four chapters:
Introduction to Early Medieval Maps, Early [European] Medieval Maps,
Islamic Maps, and Late Medieval Maps. List of Maps appears at the
beginning of the book, Conclusion, Bibliography and Index of Toponyms
and People at the end. The author has investigated collections
of medieval maps in several European major libraries and those of
Yerevan, Istanbul, Teheran etc., trying to give the reader a broad
historical background on medieval maps, both European and Islamic. The
author depicts and describes 82 main maps (mappa mundi. European and
Islamic), with 26 details, mainly showing Armenia and the neighboring
territories in three well-balanced chapters (two to four). Chapter
two includes 32 European medieval maps (Nos1-32) and nine details,
beginning with a simple T-O map by Caius Crispus Sallustius, known
as Sallust (86-34 BCE), a Roman senator and historian. This pictured
manuscript copy dates from the 9’h or 10’h century, drawn on vellum
and kept at the University of Leipzig.

Chapter four contains images and descriptions of 27 later [European]
medieval maps (Nos 56-82) and 15 details.

The author concludes that in medieval times, due to lack of border
demarcations and the rule of force, few borders were fixed for long,
or could be even approximately determined. Consequently, most medieval
maps lack bordering lines between countries which are shown just by
mentioning their names somewhere in the area they occupied. Armenia
appears in almost every map showing some sort of detail, and in many
cases both Greater and Lesser-Armenia (Armenia Major and Minor) are
depicted. Perhaps a more prominent position given to Armenia is due
to the fact that it was the oldest and easternmost Christian nation,
which proclaimed Christianity as the state religion in 301 CE, and
due to the Biblical account of the Flood and Mount Ararat, where
Noah’s Ark came to rest, Komitas Institute reported.

PanARMENIAN.Net

Armenian bookmakers accept bets: Will Obama say `The Genocide’?
21.03.2009 16:29 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Recently Vivaro bookmakers started to accept bets
for Obama’s referring to the mass slaughter of Armenians as Genocide
in his commemorative statement of Apr. 24. The quotients for Obama’s
referring to the Genocide were 1.30. Yet bookmakers consider it more
possible Obama will refrain from this step, quotient `against’
totaling 3.2. Currently the bet was excluded from Vivaro’s betting
list.

During his election campaign the 44th President of The United States
Barak Obama pledged that, as president, he will recognize Turkey’s
slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915 as the Armenian
Genocide.

US Fed News
March 21, 2009 Saturday 6:38 PM EST

Rep. Schiff Introduces Resolution Concerning Armenian Genocide by
Ottoman Empire

WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON, March 21 — Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, has introduced
a resolution (H.Res. 252) "calling upon the President to ensure that
the foreign policy of the U.S. reflects appropriate understanding and
sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic
cleansing, and genocide documented in the U.S. record relating to the
Armenian Genocide."

The resolution, introduced on March 17, has 76 co-sponsors. It was
referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. A copy of the
full-text of the legislation follows: H.Res. 252 Calling upon the
President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States
reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues
related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in
the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for
other purposes.

Resolved, SHORT TITLE Sec. 1. This resolution may be cited as the
`Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide
Resolution’.

FINDINGS Sec. 2. The House of Representatives finds the following:

(1) The Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman
Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly
2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were
killed, 500,000 survivors were expelled from their homes, and which
succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year presence of
Armenians in their historic homeland.

(2) On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers, England, France, and Russia,
jointly issued a statement explicitly charging for the first time ever
another government of committing `a crime against humanity’.

(3) This joint statement stated `the Allied Governments announce
publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally
responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as
well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres’.

(4) The post-World War I Turkish Government indicted the top leaders
involved in the `organization and execution’ of the Armenian Genocide
and in the `massacre and destruction of the Armenians’.

(5) In a series of courts-martial, officials of the Young Turk Regime
were tried and convicted, as charged, for organizing and executing
massacres against the Armenian people.

(6) The chief organizers of the Armenian Genocide, Minister of War
Enver, Minister of the Interior Talaat, and Minister of the Navy Jemal
were all condemned to death for their crimes, however, the verdicts of
the courts were not enforced.

(7) The Armenian Genocide and these domestic judicial failures are
documented with overwhelming evidence in the national archives of
Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, the United States,
the Vatican and many other countries, and this vast body of evidence
attests to the same facts, the same events, and the same consequences.

(8) The United States National Archives and Record Administration
holds extensive and thorough documentation on the Armenian Genocide,
especially in its holdings under Record Group 59 of the United States
Department of State, files 867.00 and 867.40, which are open and
widely available to the public and interested institutions.

(9) The Honorable Henry Morgenthau, United States Ambassador to the
Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916, organized and led protests by
officials of many countries, among them the allies of the Ottoman
Empire, against the Armenian Genocide.

(10) Ambassador Morgenthau explicitly described to the United States
Department of State the policy of the Government of the Ottoman Empire
as `a campaign of race extermination,’ and was instructed on July 16,
1915, by United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing that the
`Department approves your procedure . . . to stop Armenian
persecution’.

(11) Senate Concurrent Resolution 12 of February 9, 1916, resolved
that `the President of the United States be respectfully asked to
designate a day on which the citizens of this country may give
expression to their sympathy by contributing funds now being raised
for the relief of the Armenians’, who at the time were enduring
`starvation, disease, and untold suffering’.

(12) President Woodrow Wilson concurred and also encouraged the
formation of the organization known as Near East Relief, chartered by
an Act of Congress, which contributed some $116,000,000 from 1915 to
1930 to aid Armenian Genocide survivors, including 132,000 orphans who
became foster children of the American people.

(13) Senate Resolution 359, dated May 11, 1920, stated in part, `the
testimony adduced at the hearings conducted by the sub-committee of
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have clearly established the
truth of the reported massacres and other atrocities from which the
Armenian people have suffered’.

(14) The resolution followed the April 13, 1920, report to the Senate
of the American Military Mission to Armenia led by General James
Harbord, that stated `[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death have
left their haunting memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys,
and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of
this most colossal crime of all the ages’.

(15) As displayed in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum,
Adolf Hitler, on ordering his military commanders to attack Poland
without provocation in 1939, dismissed objections by saying `[w]ho,
after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?’ and
thus set the stage for the Holocaust.

(16) Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term `genocide’ in 1944, and who
was the earliest proponent of the United Nations Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, invoked the Armenian case as a
definitive example of genocide in the 20th century.

(17) The first resolution on genocide adopted by the United Nations at
Lemkin’s urging, the December 11, 1946, United Nations General
Assembly Resolution 96(1) and the United Nations Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of Genocide itself recognized the Armenian
Genocide as the type of crime the United Nations intended to prevent
and punish by codifying existing standards.

(18) In 1948, the United Nations War Crimes Commission invoked the
Armenian Genocide `precisely . . . one of the types of acts which the
modern term `crimes against humanity’ is intended to cover’ as a
precedent for the Nuremberg tribunals.

(19) The Commission stated that `[t]he provisions of Article 230 of
the Peace Treaty of Sevres were obviously intended to cover, in
conformity with the Allied note of 1915 . . ., offenses which had been
committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship,
though of Armenian or Greek race. This article constitutes therefore a
precedent for Article 6c and 5c of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters,
and offers an example of one of the categories of `crimes against
humanity’ as understood by these enactments’.

(20) House Joint Resolution 148, adopted on April 8, 1975, resolved:
`[t]hat April 24, 1975, is hereby designated as `National Day of
Remembrance of Man’s Inhumanity to Man’, and the President of the
United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation
calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a
day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially those
of Armenian ancestry . . .’.

(21) President Ronald Reagan in proclamation number 4838, dated April
22, 1981, stated in part `like the genocide of the Armenians before
it, and the genocide of the Cambodians, which followed it–and like
too many other persecutions of too many other people–the lessons of
the Holocaust must never be forgotten’.

(22) House Joint Resolution 247, adopted on September 10, 1984,
resolved: `[t]hat April 24, 1985, is hereby designated as `National
Day of Remembrance of Man’s Inhumanity to Man’, and the President of
the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation
calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a
day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially the one
and one-half million people of Armenian ancestry . . .’.

(23) In August 1985, after extensive study and deliberation, the
United Nations SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities voted 14 to 1 to accept a report entitled
`Study of the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide,’ which stated `[t]he Nazi aberration has unfortunately
not been the only case of genocide in the 20th century. Among other
examples which can be cited as qualifying are . . . the Ottoman
massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916′.

(24) This report also explained that `[a]t least 1,000,000, and
possibly well over half of the Armenian population, are reliably
estimated to have been killed or death marched by independent
authorities and eye-witnesses. This is corroborated by reports in
United States, German and British archives and of contemporary
diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally
Germany.’.

(25) The United States Holocaust Memorial Council, an independent
Federal agency, unanimously resolved on April 30, 1981, that the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum would include the Armenian
Genocide in the Museum and has since done so.

(26) Reviewing an aberrant 1982 expression (later retracted) by the
United States Department of State asserting that the facts of the
Armenian Genocide may be ambiguous, the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia in 1993, after a review of documents
pertaining to the policy record of the United States, noted that the
assertion on ambiguity in the United States record about the Armenian
Genocide `contradicted longstanding United States policy and was
eventually retracted’.

(27) On June 5, 1996, the House of Representatives adopted an
amendment to House Bill 3540 (the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997) to reduce
aid to Turkey by $3,000,000 (an estimate of its payment of lobbying
fees in the United States) until the Turkish Government acknowledged
the Armenian Genocide and took steps to honor the memory of its
victims.

(28) President William Jefferson Clinton, on April 24, 1998, stated:
`This year, as in the past, we join with Armenian-Americans throughout
the nation in commemorating one of the saddest chapters in the history
of this century, the deportations and massacres of a million and a
half Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the years 1915-1923.’.

(29) President George W. Bush, on April 24, 2004, stated: `On this
day, we pause in remembrance of one of the most horrible tragedies of
the 20th century, the annihilation of as many as 1,500,000 Armenians
through forced exile and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire.’.

(30) Despite the international recognition and affirmation of the
Armenian Genocide, the failure of the domestic and international
authorities to punish those responsible for the Armenian Genocide is a
reason why similar genocides have recurred and may recur in the
future, and that a just resolution will help prevent future genocides.

DECLARATION OF POLICY Sec. 3. The House of Representatives–

(1) calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the
United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity
concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and
genocide documented in the United States record relating to the
Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to realize a
just resolution; and

(2) calls upon the President in the President’s annual message
commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April 24, to
accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of
1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of
United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.

For more information about US Fed News contract awards please contact:
Sarabjit Jagirdar, US Fed News, Email:-
[email protected]