Court’s Verdict Anti Constitution

COURT’S VERDICT ANTI CONSTITUTION
By Ara Papian, Former Ambassador of RoA in Canada

Modus Vivendi Centre
12 January 2010

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia came to a decision
on the unfortunate pair of Armenia-Turkey protocols. As seen as being
bound to happen, it was declared that ‘the obligations codified in
the protocols are in accord with the Constitution of the Republic
of Armenia’. Of course, there could have been another declaration,
which would have been more desirable. I maintain my position, that
the protocols contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia,
and the processes of their authentication and signing have been in
violation of the corresponding laws and regulations currently in
place in the Republic of Armenia.

The deed is now done, however, and so the most important question
arises: what must we do? One thing remains, to take a deep breath and
carry on the struggle. The decision in question of the Constitutional
Court provides even more opportunities for that struggle, as the
legal opinion of the Constitutional Court is not absolute and without
qualification, but has certain clear interpretations and reservations.

Of course, it would take much longer and much greater detail for
an analysis to lay out the leeway in its entirety. Nevertheless,
it is clear at first glance itself that such leeway exists. For
example, the Constitutional Court codifies in its legal opinion
that the protocols are only ‘mutual’ and that they ‘bear exclusively
a bilateral inter-state character’. It is thus clearly stated that
Armenia-Turkey relations are separate from Armenia-Azerbaijan relations
or relations between Turkey and the Armenian Diaspora. Or, what I
find most significant, ‘international treaties can have juridical [1]
force with regards to the Republic of Armenia … only while taking
into account their validity based on international law’. That is
to say, the Constitutional Court has codified that, for example,
if the treaties of Alexandropol, Moscow or Kars are void as per
international law – and there can be no doubt on the matter that
they are – then those treaties cannot ‘have juridical force with
regards to the Republic of Armenia’, and the frontiers described
in them consequently cannot act as legal bases for "the existing
border". Accordingly, by the legal opinion of the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Armenia, the protocols cannot and do not
render legal the treaties of Alexandropol, Moscow or Kars, as well
as the consequences of other possible unlawful legal instruments
that are void from the perspective of international law. Put simply,
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia has provided an
interpretation for the application of one of the basic and general
principles of law with regards to the unfortunate protocols, namely
jus ex injuria non oritur, illegal acts cannot create law.

The Constitutional Court has also found that the clauses of the
protocols ‘cannot be interpreted and applied such that they contradict
the clauses of the preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of
Armenia and the demands of the eleventh clause of the declaration of
independence of Armenia’. I would like to recall that, according to
the clause in question, "The Republic of Armenia stands in support of
the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide
in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia".

The decision of the Constitutional Court is a very important and
legally-defined step in the process of expressing the conduct of the
Republic of Armenia when it comes to international treaties.

Nevertheless, it forms part of the domestic process and has almost no
significance in international law. In most countries, constitutional
or other levels of courts have no role to play in foreign relations.

In order for the opinion declared by the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Armenia to have any legal force in international law,
it must be included as an official reservation, forming part of the
corresponding decision of the legislature of the Republic of Armenia.

The National Assembly must consider without question that the decision
in question of the Constitutional Court is based on certain legal
positions, and that the decision contains clear reservations and
interpretations. Thus, the legislature of the Republic of Armenia
is obliged to reflect in its discussions and, moreover, to at least
include in its decision, all the reservations and interpretations
expressed by the Constitutional Court.

Even after considering all this, I do not believe that ratifying
the Armenia-Turkey protocols would be in favour of the interests of
the Republic of Armenia and of the Armenian people. The best way out
would be the general rejection of those protocols. Why are we creating
problems for ourselves, that we may heroically overcome them later? Is
the spirit of Comrade Panchouni still thriving among us? He would say,
‘Close the door, I’ll come in through the window’. Let us not close
the open door today, so that we are not forced to come in through
the window tomorrow.

[1] [Instead of the Armenian "iravabanakan"] I would prefer using
the term ‘legal’ ["iravakan"], as the "juridical" is with regards
to jurisprudence, that is, with the science of law, while something
"legal" refers to rights and laws.

Vahan Hovhannisyan Not Satisfied With The Decision Of The Constituti

VAHAN HOVHANNISYAN NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
Lena Badeyan

"Radiolur"
14.01.2010 15:15

Head of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun faction of the National Assembly Vahan
Hovhannisyan is not satisfied with the decision of the Constitutional
Court on the Armenian-Turkish protocols. He considers, however,
that not everything is hopeless, there is still room to work with
the documents and the MPs.

Vahan Hovhannisyan has no information about the terms of discussion
of the issue of ratification of the Armenian-Turkish protocols by
the National Assembly. Even if it is put on the agenda, the Speaker
of Parliament is entitled to decide the order of the issues to be
considered.

ARF Dashnaktsutyun notices dangerous trends of development after the
decision of the Constitutional Court.

Vladimir Zhirinovski: Russia Must Recognize Nagorny Karabakh If It D

VLADIMIR ZHIRINOVSKI: RUSSIA MUST RECOGNIZE NAGORNY KARABAKH IF IT DECLARES INDEPENDENCE

ArmInfo
2010-01-12 14:36:00

ArmInfo. "Russia must recognize Nagorny Karabakh if it declares
independence," says Vladimir Zhirinovski, Leader of the Liberal
Democratic Party of Russia, Vice-Speaker of the Russian State Duma,
in an interview with Latvian "Neatkarigas Rita Avize".

"I am not against either Armenians or Azerbaijanis, but they will
never agree on Nagorny Karabakh like Georgian will never agree with
Abkhazia. Arabs will never agree with the Jews. Kurds and Turks will
never reach an agreement either," he says. Zhirinovski mentions that
Russia has called recognizing all the territories that did not want
to be part of their former Soviet republics. "Russia has been calling
for recognition of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdniestria and Nagorny
Karabakh for already 16 years," he says.

The Armenian Mirror-Spectator – 01/09/2010

The Armenian Mirror-Spectator
755 Mount Auburn St.
Watertown, MA 02472
Tel: (617) 924-4420
Fax: (617) 924-2887
Web:
E-mail: [email protected]

January 9, 2010
1. Goldhagen Examines the Roots of Mass Murder in the 20th Century
2. Voice of the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarch Was Finally Heard Worldwide

*************************************** ****************
1. Goldhagen Examines the Roots of Mass Murder in the 20th Century

*By Daphne Abeel
Special to the Mirror-Spectator*

Daniel Goldhagen’s, a former professor of political science at Harvard
University, made an impact with his earlier book, Hitler’s Willing
Executioners, published in 1996. In it, Goldhagen argued that it was not
only the Nazi elite, the SS, the Einsatzgruppen which performed the killing
of millions of Jews, now known as the Holocaust. It was also the ordinary
German citizen who willingly participated in the attempt to eradicate Jews
in Germany, he says.

His new book, Worse than War, begins with a sentence that will shock many
Americans. He asserts President Harry Truman was a mass murderer by reason
of his decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. He does not argue that
Truman was a monster such as Hitler or Stalin, and he does not claim that
the atomic bombings constituted genocide – that is, a concerted effort to
eliminate a particular ethnic or religious group. Truman, presumably, would
have dropped the bomb on any nation with which we were at war. It happened
to be the Japanese who had attacked the US at Pearl Harbor.

However, he uses these bombings to launch a lengthy and detailed discussion
of the 20th century’s mass killings. He uses the word `eliminationism’
interchangeably with genocide and mass murder to describe these efforts,
which commence with the Germans’ attempts to extinguish the Herero tribe
in
South Africa in the early part of the last century. He proceeds with
discussion of the Armenian Genocide, the German Holocaust, the Hutu-Tutsi
conflict in Rwanda and the Serbs’ killings of the Bosnians in the former
Yugoslavia and probes the reasons why certain groups are willing to engage
in mass murder or eliminationism.

Goldhagen posits that it is the formation of states or national entities
that makes eliminationism possible. Leaders such as Hitler, Stalin and those
in the Ottoman Empire were able to marshal forces to work their will against
populations that were deemed a threat to the state, when certain conditions
exist. As he points out in his narrative, this was certainly true in the
case of the Turks’ massacre of the Armenians.

At nearly 600 pages (excluding the notes and acknowledgments) this is
something of a daunting read, and one looks in vain for something truly new
on the subject. At times, Goldhagen’s statements and arguments are muddled
by his underlying agenda, which is to demonstrate that all societies and the
human beings that populate them are capable of horrendous acts of mass
killing. Also, he is prone to making opaque pronouncements that are
difficult to decipher, for example, at the end of his chapter titled `Actual
Minds, Actual Worlds,’ he states, `Actual minds create actual worlds.’ Since
the word `actual’ has not been defined, the reader is left wondering what he
means.

In his first chapter, he posits five different elements regarding the act of
eliminationism, or `the desire to eliminate groups.’ They include:
`transformation,’ which involves `the destruction of a group’s essential and
defining political, social or cultural identities, in order to neuter its
members’ alleged noxious qualities;’ `repression,’ which entails
`keeping
the hated, deprecated, or feared people within territorial reach and
reducing, with violent domination, their ability to inflict real or imagined
harm upon others;’ `prevention of reproduction,’ which involves seeking `to
diminish numbers by interrupting normal biological reproduction.’ In this
last instance, widespread rape is a common tool for accomplishing this goal.
Fifth, in Goldhagen’s list is `extermination.’ He notes, `Radical as it is,
killing often logically follows beliefs deeming others to be a great, even
mortal threat. It promises not an interim, not a piecemeal, not only a
`probable,’ but a `final solution,’ giving this infamous euphemism
worldwide
currency, was the Germans’ mass murder of the Jews.’

Goldhagen points out that mass murders are usually initiated in a political
context and are perpetrated by the leadership, which deliberately awakens
hatreds and resentments in the populace at large. Hitler’s depiction of the
Jews as polluters of and parasites on the German state, according to
Goldhagen (and he lays out this argument in detail in Hitler’s Willing
Executioners) merely awakened long-simmering suspicion and hatred of the
Jews that had been extant in Germany for decades. Bosnians and Serbs lived
side by side as neighbors, friends and even intermarried until Dictator
Marshal Josip Tito’s communist regime, which kept a lid on seething,
subterranean conflicts, died. Immediately old ethnic and religious hatreds
emerged, expressing themselves egregiously in the murder of many Bosnian
Muslims by Catholic Serbs.

Goldhagen reviews the many heinous acts of various populations, notably the
hacking to death of hundreds of thousands of Tutsi by the rival tribe, Hutu,
the many rapes by Serbs of Bosnian women, the death marches and killings
carried out by the Turks against the Armenians, and, of course, the
annihilation of six million Jews in the course of World War II.

Perhaps most useful, although not exactly newsworthy, is Goldhagen’s focus
on the inaction and passivity of the international community in these
horrendous events. The United States, he argues, fought World War II
primarily to counter Hitler’s `lebensraum’ ambitions. The killing of
the
Jews concerned the American community very little. The Jewish community,
more successfully than any other, has been able to commemorate and bring to
light their tragedy through the publication of many books by those who lived
through the Nazi era and also films, such as `Schindler’s List,’ which have
received wide distribution.

And one cannot argue with Goldhagen when he says, `They [facts of mass
murder] should be at the center of security discussions in the United
Nations and in other international and domestic forums concerned with
security, the international order and justice. That they are not shows how
skewed are our depiction of the last century and the one just begun.’

Much of this book, no matter that many of the facts are known and have been
published in news accounts and other books, is painful reading. The oral
testimony of a woman in Darfur who has been raped and sexually mutilated is
particularly horrifying.

Goldhagen also points out that many domestic acts of mass murder, for
example in the Republic of Congo and in Darfur, Sudan, two places where such
killings are currently taking place, barely register on the radar screen of
the world community. Without some compelling factor of self-interest, oil,
or the taking of land, other countries are content to stand by and watch.

In his final section of the book, `Prologue to the Future,’ Goldhagen points
to political Islam as `today’s most dangerous eliminationist political
movement. It has eliminationist civilization’s hallmark features –
tyrannical regimes, eliminationist-oriented leaders, transformative
eschatological visions, populaces brimming with eliminationist beliefs and
passions, a sense of impunity, and eliminationism at the center of its
normal political repertoire and existing practice.’

Goldhagen calls upon the leaders of the world, and in particular, the
president of the United States, to articulate a moral vision that would put
an end to mass murders.

He concludes, `A serious international prevention, intervention, and
punishment regime to stop mass murderous and eliminationist states and
leaders from warring on their peoples and humanity and a devoted
international push for democratizing more countries to remove the
institutional and political and cultural basis for political leaders to even
see eliminationist policies as an option, are the basis for a more secure,
more global structure that would greatly end eliminationist politics’ mass
violence and vast destructiveness.’

One can approve Goldhagen’s pointing out the dereliction of attention on
the
part of the international community to mass murders throughout the past
century. And who could argue with his call for the international community
to cooperate to end these cruel and immoral acts?

Yet, there is something annoying about this volume – for one thing, its
length, which involves a certain repetitiveness. More troubling is
Goldhagen’s inability to clearly define his terms. `Eliminationist,’
which
may be a word he has coined, is used interchangeably with mass murder and
genocide and yet he presents the concept as though it were something new.
And there are other instances of both muddled reasoning and lack of
precision.
For a general review of the past centuries’ horrors, particularly for those
not familiar with them, this is a useful work. More informed readers will be
bemused if not irritated by a certain lack of clarity and verbosity in the
presentation.

******************************* ************************************
2. Voice of the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarch Was Finally Heard Worldwide

*By Hagop Vartivarian*

Life in the patriarchate of the supreme heads of the Orthodox Church in
Istanbul was never easy during the past few decades, especially with the
closing of the Halki Seminary in Heybeliada in 1971.

The ecumenical Greek patriarch is the leader of the world’s 300 million
Orthodox, who live in Greece, the Balkan countries and Russia.

After the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church is the most
influential, and presently, although its patriarch lives abased in his
shell, under the thumb of the Republic of Turkey, he still remains rich with
the church’s past glory going back 1,700 years.

Coverage by American media of the minorities living in Turkey – the
Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians/Syriacs, Kurds, Alevis, etc. – had
traditionally been quite skimpy. However, for the past year or so, as a
consequence of Turkey’s foreign policy, whereby a chill has already become
palpable in relations with Israel, oddly enough, the press and television
stations in the US have widely expanded their coverage of these minorities,
in an attempt to convey a message to this country’s erstwhile and longtime
ally.

Then, the well-known journalist Bob Simon had a rather frank
interview/meeting with the ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew at the
patriarchate, which was broadcast on `60 Minutes’ by CBS, America’s
most-watched television network, last Sunday [December 19]. The viewers of
the program and, subsequently, those who read about the interview in the
papers, were veritably stunned by the patriarch’s forthright answers.

The stipulation in the Treaty of Lausanne, whereby the clergyman ascending
to the patriarchal throne had to be a Turkish citizen, already prevented the
expansion of the ecumenical patriarchate and its remaining open to the
orthodox world. Today, barely 4,000 Greeks live in the Republic of Turkey,
whereas their number was two million at the beginning of the past century.
In 1923, more than 1.5 million of them were deported, and the government
automatically threw another 150,000 Greeks out of the country, as a result
of the savage attacks and plunder committed by the anti-Christian Muslim mob
in Istanbul [September 6, 1955].

In his interview, Patriarch Bartholomew had the temerity to state that the
Greeks, like the other minorities, are considered second-class citizens in
the Republic of Turkey – a territory, in which these minorities were the
rulers of Asia Minor. Furthermore, in response to the question regarding the
number of Greeks today and why they don’t leave and go to Greece, the
patriarch said, `We love our country, we were born here and we shall die
here. We have lived and worked for 17 centuries, from here to the mountains
of Cappadocia, which till now give evidence of their past glory when Rome
was still ruled by Caesars.’ The patriarch was correct: Ataturk and his
successors tried to systematically reduce to nothing an entire Christian
civilization of the Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians/Syriacs and Chaldeans over
the past century.

Asia Minor is considered the continuation of Jerusalem, because while
Christianity was born in the Holy City, nevertheless during those initial
difficult days it spread in Asia Minor, where the first Christian people
were baptized in Armenia=85and thus Constantinople followed us when the
Orthodox Church was founded. It should also be noted that the Byzantine
Empire was politically the greatest power of that era.

Patriarch Bartholomew showed the sad state of the aforementioned seminary
and explained why the library and museum was in peril.

Now that the Russian Orthodox Church, which had been reduced to obscurity
after the October Revolution, is living its new golden age ever since the
fall of the Soviet Union, when new churches are being built in all the
villages of Russia and hundreds of youths are devoting themselves to service
in the church, it will surely be of assistance to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, sooner or later, through political intervention on the part of
Russia.

Immediately following this interview, Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmed
Davoutoglu, announced that crucifixion had never taken place on the
territory of Turkey. He forgot the dates of 1657 and 1821, when two
ecumenical patriarchs were hanged in front of the main entrance to the
patriarchate. Furthermore, he forgot the Adana massacres that occurred a
century ago, as well as the Armenian Genocide, which is considered the
greatest crucifixion of the Christian church. He also forgot 1923, when
Armenians and Greeks were dumped into the sea in broad daylight=85.

Although the ecumenical patriarch was able to make his voice heard, that
happened due to the freeze in the relations between Turkey and Israel. How
long will Europe and America, the Christian world as a whole, be able to
continue to maintain their silence? When will the time come, for them to be
able to defend the human rights of Turkey’s minorities?

Nevertheless, last weekend, hundreds of thousands of Americans became
informed about the injustices committed against Christians in Turkey,
America’s ally. For that, Bob Simon deserves our thanks.

(The original text of this article, translated here by Aris G. Sevag, was
published in the December 24, 2009 issue of Zartonk, the December 29, 2009
issue of Azg daily, and the December 31, 2009 issue of Nor Gyank weekly.)

http://www.mirrorspectator.com

Crusader for Moscow architecture dies aged 62

Crusader for Moscow architecture dies aged 62

MOSCOW, January 7 (RIA Novosti)

David Sarkisyan, director of the Schusev Museum of Architecture and
campaigner for Moscow’s architectural heritage, died in the Russian
capital on Thursday aged 62.

Born in Yerevan, Armenia in 1947, Sarkisyan was a man of many talents,
first working as a biologist and developing a drug used in the
treatment of Alzheimer’s, then in the 1980s turning his hand to film
as the writer and director of more than 20 documentaries.

Finally, in 2000, he became the head of the Museum of Architecture.

Recognizing that the walls of the grand old building on Vozdvizhenka
were the perfect backdrop for architectural exhibitions, he
transformed the obscure venue into a first-rate exhibition space.

But his work extended beyond the small courtyard not far from the
Kremlin. He fought against what he saw as the destruction of some of
Moscow’s most important architectural monuments, not least the Hotel
Moskva just off Red Square, which was demolished in 2004 so that a
new, nearly identical hotel could be built in its place with modern
materials and techniques.

The original building, designed by Alexei Schusev, for whom the
architecture museum is named, is memorialized in an online exhibit on
the museum’s web site.

In the wake of the 2004 fire that nearly destroyed the Manezh next to
the Kremlin, Sarkisyan published an open letter to the Russian
authorities calling for "immediate action for salvation of the
architectural heritage of our country."

He warned of a "cultural catastrophe" that would rob Russians of their
historical memory, saying that the disruption of Moscow’s
architectural past was having a destructive influence on other cities,
which were also losing their appearance.

His latest campaign, against the planned demolition of the Central
House of Artists on the Moscow River near Gorky Park, seems to have
failed to save that building, with the city apparently pushing ahead
with plans to redevelop the site.

Sarkisyan was not universally critical of the development of the
Russian capital, however, praising the creation of the Moscow-City
business district on the edge of downtown.

Arrangements have yet to be made for Sarkisyan’s funeral.

The museum’s current exhibition is devoted to the creation of Russia’s
pavilion at the Paris Exhibition of 1937, which included the "Worker
and Collective-Farm Girl" monument.

Western Prelate’s Christmas Message

Western Prelate’s Christmas Message
Asbarez
Jan 4th, 2010 .

`Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward
men!’ (Luke 2:14)

Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian
Dearly Beloved,

The Feast of the Nativity and Theophany of our Lord is a celebration
of the birth of hope, a new hope that our Savior Jesus Christ provided
with His Glorious Birth.

In that humble manger in Bethlehem over two thousand years ago, hope
permeated the world as the Light shined from the manger and
illuminated a darkened world. What transpired on that silent and holy
night was the beginning of God’s redemptive plan for mankind. God
sent His only begotten Son to bear our burdens and to sustain us; the
Word became flesh and lived among us. Christmas is a reminder that
the Lord gave Himself to us in Baby Jesus and brought us a Light that
no darkness can extinguish.

The past year has been a trying time for all peoples around the world.
The global economic climate has left many unsettled and despondent.
Furthermore, the Armenian people were thrust into a state of
uncertainty about the future of our cause and our nation.
The year 2010 marks the 95th anniversary of the Genocide. It is easy
to feel disparaged as it seems unclear what the outcome of our
decades-long struggle for our national rights will be. Now more than
ever we must continue to place our hopes in our Lord Jesus Christ, for
`Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, and whose hope is the
Lord’ (Jeremiah 17:7). The Lord has sustained us and guided our path
as a people for centuries and we can be certain that at this
crossroads too, He will lead us as we labor for our goals and our
dreams. Let us not place false hopes on those who will disappoint,
but rather in our Lord Savior Jesus Christ, for God knows and will
meet our needs. As the Apostle Paul asserts in Romans, `hope does not
disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts
by the Holy Spirit who was given to us’ (Romans 5:5).

Dear Faithful,

In this season of gift giving, let us remember that we have been
bestowed the greatest gift of all; Jesus Christ’s presence and hope in
our lives. Let us remember not only during Christmastime but
throughout the year that He, and only He, is our hope and the Light of
the world. We all face times of darkness; however let us rejoice in
that the Lord has given us enduring hope even in our darkest hours.

On this glorious occasion, I convey my blessings and extend my well
wishes for health and prosperity to our clergy, Executive Council,
delegates, parishes’ representatives, educators, members of sister
organizations, faithful parishioners, and friends.
I pray that the Christmas hope is born anew in all of us and for the
Light of Jesus Christ to radiate in us and fill our lives with peace.
`Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing,
that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit’. (Romans
15:13)

A happy and blessed New Year to you all
Christ is Born and Revealed

Prayerfully,
Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian

Armenian President visits front line

news.am, Armenia
Dec 31 2009

Armenian President visits front line

18:29 / 12/31/2009On December 31, on the occasion of the New Year
holidays RA President and Supreme Commander-in-Chief Serzh Sargsyan
visited the frontline of the Armenian armed forces. Visiting
borderline villages and military units is the Armenian leader’s
tradition.

In the village of Aigekhovit the Armenian President held a public
meeting and congratulated the villagers. He stressed that the
residents of Armenia’s borderline regions are `natural frontier
guards’ and are focus of the Government’s attention. The Armenian
leader visited the frontline, got acquainted with the roster, talked
to the soldiers.

The Armenian leader presented a number of servicemen with watches and
proposed a toast to the Armenian Armed Forces.

T.P.

Candidate For Deputy Hmayak Hovhannisian Withdraws His Candidature

CANDIDATE FOR DEPUTY HMAYAK HOVHANNISIAN WITHDRAWS HIS CANDIDATURE

NOYAN TAPAN
DECEMBER 28, 2009
YEREVAN

Candidate for RA NA deputy, Chairman of the Union of Political
Scientists Hmayak Hovhannisian, on December 28, officially withdrew
his candidature and handed his candidate’s certificate. Noyan Tapan
was informed about it by chairwoman of electoral district commission
N 10 Silva Markosian.

It should be mentioned that H. Hovhannisian had repeatedly declared
his intention of withdrawing his candidature in the established term,
until December 31, for Haykakan Zhamanak newspaper’s editor-in-chief
Nikol Pashinian accused of organization of the 2008 March events
and currently being imprisoned. He had also applied to electoral
district’s voters calling them for voting for N. Pashinian.

Thus, N. Pashinian, Marxist Party of Armenia Chairman David Hakobian,
and National Unity party member Ara Simonian will take part in the
by-elections by the majority system to be held on January 10 2010 at
electoral district N 10.

It should be mentioned that the deputy powers of Khachatur Sukiasian
elected in the 2007 parliamentary elections from electoral district N
10 were stopped ahead of the schedule on the basis of his application
on resignation.

Children of Armenia: A Forgotten Genocide and Century-Long Struggle

BOOKS: ‘Children of Armenia’

The Washington Times
Sunday, December 27, 2009

CHILDREN OF ARMENIA: A FORGOTTEN GENOCIDE AND THE CENTURY-LONG
STRUGGLE FOR JUSTICE

By Michael Bobelian

Simon & Schuster, $26, 308 pages

REVIEWED BY ARAM BAKSHIAN

Holocausts will always have their deniers. But try to imagine a world
in which every post-Nazi German government for the last six decades
refused to assume any national responsibility for war crimes committed
against the Jews, arguing that "lives were lost on both sides,"
denying that there had been a policy of genocide in the first place
and even prosecuting and jailing German historians who wrote about it.
Also try to imagine a world in which western apologists for such a
patently dishonest and immoral stance would argue that Germany’s value
as a strategic NATO ally outweighed any claims of historic justice.
Absurd? Of course … yet for close to a century now, an earlier
holocaust has been denied by another NATO member, with similar excuses
made by its apologists.

First the facts.

In 1915, after having entered World War I on the side of Germany and
Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman government, dominated by militant Young
Turk nationalists, engaged in a systematic program of extermination.
The target was Turkey’s Christian Armenian minority, members of a race
that had inhabited parts of the Ottoman Empire for centuries – in some
cases, thousands of years – before the arrival of the first Turkic
invaders from the Asian steppes. Around 2 million Armenians were
rounded up by the authorities and driven from their ancestral homes
without compensation, allowed only to take what they could carry on
their backs. Many of the men and boys were butchered by Turkish
soldiers and gendarmes at the outset. The rest were set off on death
marches.

In 1915 alone, the New York Times ran more than 100 articles on the
subject, including eyewitness accounts; a typical headline was
"Wholesale Massacres of Armenians by Turks." In all, between 1 million
and 1.5 million Armenians died. The survivors, many of them widows and
orphans, would have to begin life over as penniless exiles. I know,
because my paternal grandmother Yevkine Bakshian, was one of the local
Washington leaders of Near East Relief, an American charity that held
clothe and feed thousands of the survivors.

Although war crime trials were held in Istanbul immediately after
World War I, and despite the fact that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder
of the modern Turkish republic, referred to the state-organized
slaughter of the Armenians as a "shameful act," the Turkish government
still refuses to acknowledge the historic facts. You can even be tried
and jailed for writing about them, as nearly happened to Turkish Nobel
Prize-winner Orhan Pamuk.

When justice is denied, revenge fills the vacuum. Over the years, a
handful of expatriate Armenians – some of them holocaust survivors –
engaged in wanton acts of murder against innocent Turkish diplomats.
Predictably, these isolated and reprehensible acts only hardened
official Turkish attitudes while offering no comfort to victims of the
holocaust. Symbolic of this historic deadlock was a 49-49 vote in the
U.S. Senate in 1990 that stopped the U.S. government from officially
recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

Armenian Government Not Yet Ready To Undertake Extra Commitments In

ARMENIAN GOVERNMENT NOT YET READY TO UNDERTAKE EXTRA COMMITMENTS IN SOCIAL SPHERE

/PanARMENIAN.Net/
25.12.2009 16:32 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian Government is not yet ready to undertake
extra commitments in social sphere considering the unpredictable
nature of financial crisis, Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan said.

"In 2009, we increased budgetary expenditures by AMD 100 billion,
spending over AMD 900 million instead of last year’s AMD 810 million.

Those sums were spent for stimulating growth in separate sectors
of economy and mitigating social tension," he told a resulting news
conference in Yerevan.

At that, he noted that pensions and salaries have this year increased
by 16% and 11% respectively "despite the 15% economic slump".

According to the Premier, 3000 workplaces were opened in disaster
zone and activities in that direction will continue in 2010.

With regard to the achievements in construction sphere, Prime Minister
noted that republican and rural roads with a total length of 415 km.

were repaired and a 300 km. irrigation system was restored

"Infrastructure development is in Government’s spotlight," Mr.

Sargsyan said, adding that Government plans to construct 500 water
supply systems next year.

Touching upon Government’s priorities, the Premier stressed the
importance of providing assistance to unemployed individuals and
families whose number has increased in 2009.