MoD denies the news spread by the Azerbaijani telegram channels about heavy fighting on the border

 18:06,

YEREVAN, JUNE 15, ARMENPRESS. The Ministry of Defense of Armenia denied the information spread by the Azerbaijani telegram channels about the heavy fighting in the southeastern part of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border.

"Azerbaijani telegram channels are spreading misinformation about heavy battles allegedly taking place in the southeastern part of the border zone. Thus, the Azerbaijani propaganda machine is trying to create an information base for another provocation. As of 5:50 p.m., the situation on the front line is relatively stable," ARMENPRESS reports, reads the statement issued by the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Armenia.

The construction boom in Armenia will continue for a long time. Pashinyan

 18:47,

YEREVAN, JUNE 15, ARMENPRESS. There is a construction boom in Armenia and it will continue for a long time, because the government is making a new decision, ARMENPRESS reports, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said during the discussion of the bill on approving the annual report on the implementation of the 2022 state budget of the Republic of Armenia in the National Assembly.

The Prime Minister noted that the opposition thinks what the Armenian government has to do with the 12 percent economic growth of 2022.

"I have to disappoint, don't I? There is a big construction boom in Armenia today. How did that happen? It is related to a very specific program of the government, when we decided that we will continue to return the income tax for the mortgage loan and after January 1, 2025, this system will not work in Yerevan. And all those investors, who knew that there is a huge demand for housing in Yerevan, rushed to invest, because in 2022, the 35 billion drams were not going to be invested in that project. That construction boom will continue for a long time, because we are now making the next decision," said Pashinyan.

“In 2025, the program will leave Yerevan, in the next phase, most likely, from January 1, 2028, it will be closed for regions near Yerevan. And the program will be available for all other regions.

And this construction boom, saturating Yerevan and the regions near Yerevan, will reach the most remote settlements of Armenia. Today we see its phenomena. We have newly built buildings in Kapan, we also support with state programs to increase purchasing power and competitiveness in the market," said the Prime Minister.

According to him, in those constructions, equipment is being used that has not been in Armenia for 30 years. According to the Prime Minister, it was also due to the state program for the modernization of the economy, by which the state subsidizes the interest on the loans taken by the companies for purchasing equipment.

Armenpress: Azerbaijan again falsely accuses Nagorno Karabakh of breaching ceasefire in latest disinformation campaign

 07:46,

YEREVAN, JUNE 14, ARMENPRESS. The Azerbaijani authorities have again released disinformation, the Nagorno Karabakh (Republic of Artsakh) Defense Ministry warned Wednesday.

“The statement released by the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry claiming that [Artsakh] Defense Army units opened fire around 19:15, June 13 at Azerbaijani positions deployed in the occupied territories of the Shushi region of the Republic of Artsakh is yet another disinformation,” the Ministry of Defense of Artsakh said in a statement.

AraratBank unveils a special offer and competitive terms at Leasing Expo 2023

 16:38, 2 June 2023

YEREVAN, JUNE 2, ARMENPRESS. At Leasing Expo 2023 exhibition, AraratBank has come forward with a new initiative, offering competitive terms to individual entrepreneurs and legal entities.

Leasing Expo 2023 was launched today at 12:00 in the Karen Demirchyan Sports and Concerts Complex. During the three days of the Expo, our leasing experts will welcome visitors at the bright yellow booth of AraratBank, ready to offer advice and respond to inquiries on financial lease.

“Leasing as a financial instrument is a flexible and affordable option for the acquisition of fixed assets, which allows the lessee to spare a huge amount of its own funds. Today, the instrument has become more attractive as lessees can take advantage of up to 10% state subsidy under the Production Capacity Modernization Measure adopted by the RA Government,” the bank said in a news release.

"AraratBank's participation in the event provides a good opportunity for networking with the business community, highlighting the importance of leasing and sparking new partnerships for mutual benefit. With AraratLeasing financing, you will be able to purchase equipment including but not limited to vehicles, construction and agricultural machinery," said Vahan Gharibyan, Deputy Head of Corporate Business Lending Department of AraratBank.

ANN/Armenian News – TLG – 06/03/2023 – There Must Be A Way – Bedros Afeyan

The Literary Armenian News

There Must Be A Way


In this burning world of change and clamor there must be a way

False truth and lies a'glamour, there must be a way

When Google, Apple, Meta and Chat Bots slide you fluff glimmering as truth and not solid granite somber unduality 

In that world of deep fakes, cheap dates, meek heroes, flights of crippled avatars

How will the young know deeply an art, a science, a craft, a discipline, years and tears, dedication, endless resolve, maturing skill?

And when all is Marvel universe of tiny nothingness swishing and booming through vacuum with cathartic music and tight bodies in latex, where will obese populations climb, amble, scleroses cooking in their veins? 

Where will nature end, flounder, falter bouncing twix extremes, be as unparadisiac, as the past has known paradise, mild mannered streams kissing shaded trees?

Oil fields fellating fighter jets

Rolling tanks and fish farms in a bunker swim

Incubated babies, collective parenting by bots

State supervised labor camps advertised as worker’s dreams 

Skin color aware, faith banter justified, hard drugs administered by priests.

Come to the future, all advertising, all toxic debris where algorithmic entertainment is life and life but a nuisance best left to the state to manage by decree. 

No war, no brain, no breath, no sea. Simulated sunlight on Wednesdays and Fridays only.

Bedros Afeyan

Pleasanton, CA

05-28-2023


The homepage for The Literary Armenian News is at: groong.org/tlg/


Dr. Bedros Afeyan ([email protected]) is the editor of The Literary Armenian News (TLG), and will consider works not only of poetry, but also in the area of short fiction. Quality of language, excellence of translation, quality of song and images are all crucial to the aesthetic value of any work up for consideration.
Please note the following important guidelines:
  • Submissions to TLG must be sent to [email protected] and [email protected].
  • With your submission include a short bio about the author;
  • Submissions may not be anonymous, but at the author's request we may use their pen-name and/or withhold their Email address for purposes of privacy;
  • Submissions which have not yet been selected will continue to receive consideration for following issues;
  • In art, selection is necessarily a judgement call. As such, we will not argue why a particular submission was or was not selected;
  • There is no guarantee or promise that a submission will be published.
  • The Week in Review Podcasts
  • The Critical Corner
  • The Literary Armenian News
  • Review & Outlook
  • Probing the Photographic Record
  • Armenia House Museums
  • ..and much more
Armenian News Network / Armenian News
https://groong.org/
Los Angeles, CA     / USA

The West should not abandon Armenia

FIRST THINGS
June 1 2023


by Mark Movsesian6 . 1 . 23


More than 120,000 Christian Armenians continue to face the threat of ethnic cleansing in Nagorno Karabakh, a region inside Azerbaijan. Over the past few weeks, the E.U., the U.S., and Russia have hosted rounds of talks about the crisis between Armenia and Azerbaijan. But these meetings are unlikely to resolve the crisis, even though Armenia recently made painful and substantial concessions. Given the indifference and, frankly, complicity of outside powers, the Azeri strongman, President Ilham Aliyev, has little incentive to negotiate in good faith—and his declared ambitions include not only Karabakh, but Armenia itself. The international community needs to do more than convene meetings to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.

As I explained last year, the current crisis is the latest episode in a conflict that dates to the Armenian Genocide of 1915, when the Ottomans eliminated the Armenian Christians of Anatolia in hopes of creating a pan-Turkic empire that would extend from the Mediterranean through the Caucasus into Central Asia. Karabakh survived the genocide and Joseph Stalin made it an autonomous region within the newly created (and Muslim-majority) Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic in the 1920s. When the Soviet Union dissolved, Karabakh Armenians declared independence. A brutal war ensued, after which Armenians controlled Karabakh and several surrounding regions they held as bargaining chips for an eventual settlement.

In the succeeding decades, flush with money from its natural gas industry, Azerbaijan built up its military. In September 2020, the Azeris attacked and reconquered all the surrounding regions and parts of Karabakh. At the time, Turkish President Erdogan boasted of “fulfilling the mission of our grandfathers in the Caucasus.” Russia, supposedly Armenia’s protector, intervened only at the last minute and fashioned a ceasefire agreement in November 2020 that the parties agreed would last five years. 

The Russian-brokered ceasefire has been a farce. Although it has some 2000 peacekeepers in the region, Russia has shown itself unable—or, more likely, unwilling—to stop continued Azeri aggression. Azerbaijan has launched two large-scale invasions of Armenia since the ceasefire was proclaimed, seizing significant territory while Russian peacekeepers stood by. Since December, Azerbaijan has blockaded Karabakh, creating a humanitarian crisis. In February, the International Court of Justice ruled that the blockade violates international law and ordered Azerbaijan to reopen the road that links Karabakh to the outside world. The Azeri government has simply ignored the ruling.

Azerbaijan can safely do so because it knows Russia would block enforcement of the ICJ’s ruling in the U.N. Security Council. This might come as a surprise to Americans, who assume that Armenia and Russia are partners. That hasn’t been the case for years. Armenia’s current government is pro-Western and has tried to balance the country’s economic and military ties with Russia with new links to Europe and the U.S. This is popular in Armenia. Armenians resent Russia’s failure to honor treaty obligations and protect Armenia when Azerbaijan invaded in September 2022, and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has publicly questioned whether Armenia will remain in the CSTO, the Russian-led security organization. A recent poll shows that a majority of Armenians now think of France and the U.S. as potential political partners rather than Russia.

In fact, Azerbaijan, not Armenia, has become Russia’s key ally in the South Caucasus. Two days before Russia invaded Ukraine, Aliyev traveled to Moscow to sign a cooperation agreement with the Russian government—an agreement, he boasted, “that brings our relations to the level of an alliance.” Azerbaijan touts itself as an alternative source of natural gas for Europe, but in fact it quietly purchases gas from Russian companies, thereby allowing Russia to avoid Western sanctions. It recently announced an Azeri-Russian-Iranian partnership to build a transport corridor to link the three countries—and exclude Western interests from the South Caucasus hub.

Western governments see all this, which explains why they have become increasingly active in the region. The U.S. intervened diplomatically to stop Azerbaijan’s invasion of Armenia in September 2022. Over strenuous Russian objections, the E.U. has placed civilian observers on Armenia’s border with Azerbaijan. And, as I wrote above, both the E.U. and the U.S. are now competing with Russia to resolve the crisis with diplomatic talks—on Western terms.

There seem to be limits, though, to how far the West will push Aliyev. Notwithstanding his ties to Putin, the West sees Aliyev as at least a potential foil against Russia—and, given the Ukraine conflict, the West is willing mostly to look the other way when it comes to Aliyev’s menacing of his democratic neighbor. The E.U. signed a deal for the importation of natural gas from Azerbaijan last summer and has praised Aliyev as a “reliable” and “crucial energy partner.” The E.U. might send civilian monitors, but it is unlikely to take too hard a line. The U.S. thinks it can perhaps use Azerbaijan to keep neighboring Iran in check; Israel thinks so too. So Aliyev can continue to play a double game, cozying up to Russia while remaining interesting enough to the West to avoid serious sanctions.

But without sanctions or other serious action, Aliyev will continue to treat Armenian concessions as invitations to engage in further aggression. For example, in negotiations in Brussels last month, both Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to recognize each other’s territorial integrity and discussed reopening railway connections based on mutual reciprocity. Pashinyan subsequently confirmed that Armenia was ready to recognize Azeri sovereignty over Karabakh (provided arrangements could be made to guarantee Armenians’ security there)—a painful public concession, apparently made at the urging of the U.S., which caused anger in Karabakh itself.

How did Aliyev respond? After Pashinyan’s statement, Aliyev again threatened Karabakh Armenians with ethnic cleansing and, for good measure, threatened Armenia as well. Armenia would have to agree to Azerbaijan’s demands with respect to border demarcation, he announced, or face further aggression. “The border will pass where we say,” Aliyev crowed. “They know that we can do it. No one will help them.” A bewildered Pashinyan asked whether Aliyev was already abandoning the position he had taken in Brussels and demanded clarification. The U.S. has not yet responded.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine, American and European leaders have spoken of the need to defend democracy and self-determination against authoritarian aggression. That is precisely what is needed in the South Caucasus now. At the very least, Western sanctions against the Aliyev regime should be on the table. Even in realist terms, it would not be in the West’s interest to abandon Armenia, which is looking to reorient itself and which can serve, in time, as an important bridge between the West, the South Caucasus, and beyond. Unless the West creates greater incentives for Azerbaijan to negotiate in good faith, however, a humanitarian crisis looks about to unfold.

Mark Movsesian is the Frederick A. Whitney Professor and Co-Director of the Center for Law and Religion at St. John's University.

 

Is Azerbaijan’s new attack against the Artsakh defense army imminent?

May 2023 will be remembered as the month of intensive negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It started from the four-day summit in Washington, where the two ministers of foreign affairs with their teams were engaged in face-to-face interactions to discuss the text of the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement. Ten days later, Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders met in Brussels, revitalizing the Brussels format, which had been stalled in September 2022. As a result of the Brussels summit, the sides reiterated the mutual recognition of territorial integrity based on the Alma-Ata declaration. For the first time, they agreed to use exact numbers when describing each other’s territories. This step dispersed fears in Azerbaijan that despite signing the Prague statement in October 2022 and recognizing Azerbaijani territorial integrity based on the Alma-Ata declaration, Armenia may still avoid recognizing Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh) as part of Azerbaijan, arguing that Artsakh was not part of Azerbaijan on December 21, 1991, when the Alma-Ata declaration was signed. A few days later, the Armenian Prime Minister confirmed that Armenia recognizes Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan during his speech at the summit of the Council of Europe. On May 22, he reiterated this position during a press conference in Yerevan. On May 19, Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers met in Moscow to continue discussing a peace agreement, while President Aliyev and Prime Minister Pashinyan met in the Russian capital on May 25. The meeting did not bring any tangible result, except the agreement to hold another trilateral meeting in Moscow at the level of deputy prime ministers to continue discussions on the opening up of communications. 

It seemed that intensive negotiations, especially Armenian recognition of Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan, would bring the sides closer to the signature of the peace agreement and lasting peace and stability in the region. However, while the international community expresses its satisfaction with the resumption of negotiations and praises the Armenian Prime Minister for his recognition of Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijani authorities are openly preparing another large-scale military strike against Artsakh. Since the end of the 2020 Artsakh war, Azerbaijan has launched several attacks against Artsakh, including military actions in March and August 2022. In December 2022, Azerbaijan closed the Berdzor (Lachin) Corridor by organizing protests of self-described eco-activists and established two checkpoints along the corridor in April 2023. 

Since the end of the 2020 Artsakh war, Azerbaijan has demanded the disarmament of the Artsakh defense army. However, until very recently, these statements were perceived as a part of the standard routine to put pressure on Armenia and to keep the image of President Aliyev as a war hero among the Azerbaijani population. However, the situation has recently changed. Since Armenia has recognized Artsakh as a part of Azerbaijan and both Armenia and the international community accepted the establishment of Azerbaijani checkpoints on the Berdzor Corridor, Azerbaijan has perceived these steps as a de facto green light for a military operation against the Artsakh defense army. On May 28, 2023, President Aliyev issued an ultimatum to Artsakh Armenians. He demanded to disband all state institutions in Artsakh, forget about any status and accept Azerbaijani citizenship. President Aliyev promised to discuss the possibility of amnesty for self-described Artsakh Republic leadership if they realized his demand. He also clearly stated that the Azerbaijani army was ready to launch military operations against Artsakh. The May 28 ultimatum by President Aliyev does not have any clear timetable, but it means that any day from now can be the last day of the ultimatum. Meanwhile, the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense resumed its usual tactics of accusations against Armenians, issuing statements about shootings toward positions of the Azerbaijani army. 

“There is only one way left – to obey the laws of Azerbaijan, to be a loyal normal citizen of Azerbaijan, to throw your own false state attributes into the trash can, to leave the ‘parliament.'” — Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev at a meeting with incoming residents in occupied Berdzor, May 28, 2023

The situation around Artsakh has reached its culmination. Azerbaijan believes that recognition of Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan by Armenia gives Baku the right to launch military strikes against the Artsakh defense army, calling these strikes either an “anti-terrorist operation” or a “fight against illegal military units deployed in Azerbaijan.” Meanwhile, Azerbaijan will probably avoid strikes against civilians and Russian peacekeepers, focusing its actions on defense army units. Azerbaijan believes that in case of a new large-scale military operation in Artsakh, the Armenian government will do nothing except a new barrage of accusations against Russia and calls to the international community to intervene. On , the US State Department issued a statement on peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It welcomed President Aliyev’s May 28 remarks on the consideration of amnesty for Artsakh Armenians. Regardless of the real intentions of the US State Department, this statement will be perceived in Azerbaijan as a green light to military actions against the Artsakh defense army if Artsakh Armenians reject President Aliyev’s ultimatum. Thus, the stage is set for the new large-scale escalation in Artsakh. The only way to prevent it or reduce its probability will be a clear statement by the Armenian government that any attack against Artsakh will ruin the current peace process. As the primary beneficiary of the resumed negotiations is the West, probably, the clear statement from Armenia that a new attack against Artsakh will ruin the process may force the US and the EU to work with Azerbaijan to stop the upcoming bloodshed and save the negotiations.      

Dr. Benyamin Poghosyan is the founder and chairman of the Center for Political and Economic Strategic Studies and a senior research fellow at APRI – Armenia. He was the former vice president for research – head of the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense Research University in Armenia. In March 2009, he joined the Institute for National Strategic Studies as a research Fellow and was appointed as INSS Deputy Director for research in November 2010. Dr. Poghosyan has prepared and managed the elaboration of more than 100 policy papers which were presented to the political-military leadership of Armenia, including the president, the prime minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Dr. Poghosyan has participated in more than 50 international conferences and workshops on regional and international security dynamics. His research focuses on the geopolitics of the South Caucasus and the Middle East, US – Russian relations and their implications for the region, as well as the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. He is the author of more than 200 academic papers and articles in different leading Armenian and international journals. In 2013, Dr. Poghosyan was a Distinguished Research Fellow at the US National Defense University College of International Security Affairs. He is a graduate from the US State Department Study of the US Institutes for Scholars 2012 Program on US National Security Policy Making. He holds a PhD in history and is a graduate from the 2006 Tavitian Program on International Relations at Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.


Armenpress: Artsakh’s MFA expresses deep disappointment regarding the statement of official representative of US State Department

Save

 20:52,

YEREVAN, MAY 31, ARMENPRESS. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Artsakh expressed deep disappointment and bewilderment over the statement of the official representative of the US State Department on May 30, in which he welcomed the recent statements of the President of Azerbaijan about the readiness to consider the so-called amnesty of the people of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh), ARMENPRESS was informed from MFA Artsakh.

“The press statement made by the US State Department Spokesperson on 30 May, in which he welcomed the recent statements of the President of Azerbaijan on the readiness to consider the issue of the so-called amnesty for the residents of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh), causes deep disappointment and bewilderment.

It is inexplicable how in this statement of the President of Azerbaijan, entirely built on open blackmail and coercion, one could find something positive that deserves encouragement. Obviously, the main message of the Azerbaijani president’s statement was the refusal of Azerbaijan from an equal dialogue with the democratically elected authorities of the Republic of Artsakh and the desire to impose their own authority on the people of Artsakh by force.

We have no doubts about the efforts of the United States to play a positive role in achieving a just, balanced and dignified settlement of the Azerbaijan-Karabakh conflict and in establishing lasting peace in the region. At the same time, we believe that the encouragement of Baku's destructive and belligerent policy runs counter to the desire to achieve positive developments in the peaceful settlement of the conflict”, reads the statement.

Researchers report use of NSO Group spyware against Armenia in military conflict

UPI
May 25 2023
By Clyde Hughes

May 25 (UPI) — Researchers on Thursday reported Azerbaijan and the NSO Group, a previous client of Azerbaijan, have used military-grade spyware to hack members of the Armenia civil society along with journalists, human rights activities and at least one United Nations official.

Researchers at Access Now, CyberHUB-AM, the Citizen Lab and others said they found the hacking campaign using the Pegasus military spyware appears to be connected to military conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the contested Nagorno-Karabakh region.

The hacking of individuals connected with Armenia was first found in November 2021, two months after the clashes between the country and Azerbaijan.

"The Armenia spyware victims include a former Human Rights Defender of the Republic of Armenia (the Ombudsperson), two Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Armenian Service journalists, a United Nations official, a former spokesperson of Armenia's Foreign Ministry (now an NGO worker), and seven other representatives of Armenian civil society," Access Now said in a statement.

"Circumstantial evidence suggests that the targeting is related to the military conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh (also referred to as the Republic of Artsakh in Armenia) between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This is the first documented evidence of the use of Pegasus spyware in an international war context."

The powerful Pegasus spyware, which can hack into and remotely control any phone, has never been documented in a military conflict.

"This investigation highlights the grave nature of spyware threats rippling across civil societies in Armenia and Azerbaijan," said Donncha O Cearbhaill, head of Amnesty International's Security Lab, which also participated in the research.

"The authorities must stop all efforts to stifle freedom of _expression_ and undertake an independent and transparent investigation into the attacks with Pegasus uncovered in both countries."

Genocide and Women: Teaching about the roles women play in genocidal and post-genocidal societies

Special Issue: Genocide Education for the 21st Century
The Armenian Weekly, April 2023

My first steps in teaching in the US were at Clark University as a doctoral student and teaching assistant for two exceptional professors—Taner Akçam and the late Robert Tobin—for their courses on the Armenian Genocide and on Human Rights and Literature, respectively. That’s when I realized how much I enjoyed the process of teaching: leading interactive discussions with students, addressing their curious and, at times, challenging questions, learning with and from them. Soon, I was invited to teach courses that focused on the history of the Armenian Genocide, comparative genocide and the history of the Holocaust at Stockton University and Northern Arizona University (NAU). Those experiences helped me hone my teaching skills and explore and practice various styles and methods; they also proved quite educational. I was particularly keen on learning what students were more curious to study, what questions they raised in class, in their papers or during group discussions and how well their course material addressed those questions. 

Erin Mouradian sharing her family history

The Road to Gender and Genocide Studies

Soon it became apparent that questions about gendered experiences, specifically the role of female victims, perpetrators and/or bystanders, repeated and dominated the discourse in every class. Students sought to learn more about women and not just as ‘vulnerable,’ and at times ‘faceless’ and ‘nameless’ groups in perpetual suffering and need of external assistance. They raised questions about female agency. How do women exercise their agency during a time of crisis—during a war, genocide and other mass atrocities? How do they face the tremendous hardships these atrocities bring upon them and their families? How do they overcome the unimaginable physical and psychological trauma caused by sexual violence? Do they, or could they, ever heal? And then, there was another set of questions aiming to explore and understand how the male-dominated patriarchal societies exacerbated these women’s pain and trauma and paved the way for more suffering post-genocide and post-war. Why don’t we hear more about sexual violence and its long-lasting consequences when studying the history of mass atrocities? What happens to those girls and women in the aftermath of war or genocide? Are they provided the necessary means and support to heal and find peace, or are they neglected, or worse, segregated and their experience and trauma stigmatized? Are they further pushed away from the rest of society into everlasting darkness and seclusion? And finally, what can we do about it? After all, isn’t it up to us to try and change this reality? 

Students’ deep, thought-provoking questions shaped my approaches to scholarship and inspired me to adopt more inclusive and novel teaching ideas and methods. Thus, when the opportunity to design and offer a new course at Martin-Springer Institute of Northern Arizona University arose, I created “Genocide and Women”—an interdisciplinary course that examined the multifaceted roles women played in genocidal and post-genocidal societies. In this class, students’ primary task was conducting a gendered analysis of mass atrocity. My role as an instructor was to create and manage a classroom where every student would feel comfortable participating in the discussion, even if the discussion topics were not always comfortable. The goal was not just to have the students entertained and engaged; it was instead an attempt to create a civil and professional environment where students would feel free to express themselves and learn from each other while discussing crucial and, at times, controversial subjects. 

Focusing on women’s experiences during the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust and the genocide in Rwanda, and learning about sexual violence and its memory in Bangladesh, Bosnia and Iraq, we analyzed the relation between gender, ethnicity, class and violence in the “Genocide and Women” class. As Elissa Bemporad and Joyce W. Warren have explained, this intersectionality “plays a crucial role in the way women experience genocide.”1 Students expressed their appreciation of the topics we discussed and the opportunity to learn about and discuss many different case studies from a new perspective, feedback that indicated the course was a success. 

Discussions with guest lecturers were a favorite student experience in this class. Since they were exposed to a variety of cases, geographies and histories from the Balkans to Central Africa, from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, I invited my colleagues, educators of diverse backgrounds, to join our classes via Zoom and discuss different approaches to and methods of understanding the systemic elements of gendered violence.2 With Dr. Arnab Dutta Roy—an expert in world literature focusing on responses to colonialism in South Asian literature—students examined the role of fiction, including novels, contemporary movies and TV shows, in understanding gendered experiences of violence. They also discussed issues of agency and the meaning and role of empathy during and post-genocide. With Mohammad Sajjadur Rahman—an expert on the genocide in Bangladesh—students addressed questions of stigma connected with rape. They observed the links between sexual violence and shame during the genocide and its aftermath. With Dr. Sara Brown—the author of Gender and the Genocide in Rwanda: Women as Rescuers and Perpetrators—students discovered the complexity of female participation in the crime of genocide and in rescue and rehabilitation efforts during and post-genocide.3 Students found these in-class experiences so engaging and compelling that some asked permission to bring their friends and peers to attend the lectures and participate in discussions.

Student Analysis and Engagement 

My students’ positive feedback and enthusiasm at NAU encouraged me to continue teaching this course when I joined Clark University in the fall of 2022. At the Strassler Center, I taught “Genocide and Women” as a seminar, which allowed more time for discussions and analysis. With a group of a dozen bright students, we explored the voices and perspectives of female victims and perpetrators of genocide. We addressed the role of eyewitnesses and relief workers. For students to see the subtleties and depths of the human dimension in the history of genocides and mass atrocity, we investigated the topics through personal accounts, including diaries, published memoirs, testimonies, and through novels and documentary films. These sources created a new dynamic in the classroom: students engaged closely with the text and visual material. They, for example, noticed significant differences between the accounts of male and female survivors when analyzing their testimonies. Students detected females’ willingness to speak about feelings and emotions extensively rather than focusing on factual details of the events, which was more common in male accounts—an observation that corresponds to Belarusian writer and Nobel Prize laureate Svetlana Alexievich’s view: “Women tell things in more interesting ways. They live with more feeling. They observe themselves and their lives. Men are more impressed with action. For them, the sequence of events is more important.”4

Students also showed initiative by critically analyzing and utilizing the sources assigned for the coursework. For instance, after reading the memoirs of Vergeen5—an Armenian Genocide survivor abducted by the Bedouins and later ashamed to return to the Armenian community because of her facial tattoos—and watching the documentary Grandma’s Tattoos6, one student expressed willingness to share her family history with the class. Erin Mouradian—a senior at Clark— volunteered to prepare a presentation and told us the story of her great-grandmother, Arousiag Khacherian of the province of Adana in the Ottoman Empire. Arousiag had survived the deportation to the Syrian desert and endured “horrible treatment” in a Muslim household, followed by several years in an orphanage.7 She then traveled to Cuba to marry Abraham Parseghian Mouradian—Erin’s great-grandfather. Together they eventually immigrated to the United States. Erin confessed in class that she remembered seeing her great-grandmother Arousiag’s tattoos, yet she had no idea what they meant or where they came from until our seminar. Erin’s willingness to utilize the analytical skills gained in our class, examine her family history and then share it with her peers created an opportunity for students to grasp the significance of those skills. Suddenly, it became evident that the topics discussed in class were not about some ‘distant’ and ‘faceless’ historical actors of the past. Arousiag’s story helped students relate to the victims’ experiences of trauma and survival. Moreover, they discovered how gender affected not only the experiences but also the recovery from and the memory of the Genocide. 

Zoom discussion with activist Niemat Ahmadi

One of the most emotional and educational experiences for the students of this seminar was the Zoom discussion led by Niemat Ahmadi—a veteran human rights and genocide prevention activist. Ahmadi survived the genocide in Darfur and was forced to flee because of her outspoken nature against the government’s genocidal attacks. To empower and amplify the voice of the communities impacted by genocide in Darfur, in 2009, Ahmadi founded the Darfur Women Action Group (DWAG).8 Generous with her time and willing to address any questions students raised, Ahmadi spoke about the continuing threats and attacks on her life and the lives of her family members even after she fled Darfur to continue the struggle for justice and accountability. Nadia Cross, one of the students pursuing a doctoral degree at the Strassler Center, later reflected on how important it was for her to have an opportunity to communicate with a female survivor and human rights activist directly. “Not only did I admire her courage and strength to pursue such work, but I also deeply appreciated that she could provide a local perspective to the women she helped, policy and lawmakers and our student group. That is incredibly unique,” highlighted Nadia.  

The seminar concluded with a class conference where students presented and discussed their final papers in the classroom. The assignment entailed a comparative analysis of women’s experiences during genocide, war and other mass atrocities. Students’ presentations reflected on various case studies—from the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust to the genocides in Bosnia, Cambodia, Darfur, Guatemala, Iraq and Rwanda. Defne Akyurek’s paper titled “The Rhetoric of Denial in the Cases of the Armenian and Bosnian Genocides,” for instance, focused on Turkish intellectual Halide Edib Adivar and Serbian politician Biljana Plavšić—two influential women who were perpetrators and deniers of genocide. Presenting her thesis, Defne explained that although these female actors operated within different contexts and timeframes, there were quite striking similarities in the methods of their denial. She noticed, for instance, that both Edib and Plavšić reframed the victimized group—Armenians and Bosniaks, respectively—as “threatening aggressors.” These women also attempted “to redirect international attention to violence inflicted on the perpetrating population” and portrayed “genocidal violence as necessary or justified retribution for a perceived wrong committed against their nations.”9 

Defne Akyurek discussing Turkish intellectual Halide Edib Adivar during her presentation

Presenting their research results, students actively discussed issues tackled during the semester. They talked about women’s agency, resistance and denial, poetry and memory, and physical, psychological, emotional and social consequences of sexual violence post-genocide. 

Focusing on women’s experiences during and after genocide allowed students to think about and analyze the history of mass atrocity through a novel, more complex and nuanced lens. Drawing upon primary sources and personal accounts of various actors, not only did they learn about different roles that women played in the time of crisis—as victims, perpetrators, rescuers, resisters, collaborators, traitors, witnesses, human rights activists, among others—but they also discussed the importance of culture and culturally defined roles of women, the rules historically imposed by society that affected the experience of women during and post-genocide. Moreover, interacting with several guest speakers, including survivors and activists, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions in class, students completely immersed themselves in every aspect of gender analysis of war and genocide, ultimately developing exceptional research questions and final projects.

Endnotes:

1 Women and Genocide: Survivors, Victims, Perpetrators, Elissa Bemporad and Joyce W. Warren, eds., (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2018)

Special thanks to Niemat Ahmadi, Dr. Sara E. Brown, Dr. Arnab Dutta Roy, Natalya Lazar, and Mohammad Sajjadur Rahman for guest-lecturing for and sharing their expertise with the students of “Genocide and Women” class.

Sara Brown, Gender and the Genocide in Rwanda: Women as Rescuers and Perpetrators (Routledge, 2017)

Masha Gessen, “The Memory Keeper. The oral histories of Belarus’s new Nobel laureate,” in the New Yorker, Special Issue (October 26, 2015) https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/26/the-memory-keeper

Mae M. Derdarian, Vergeen: A Survivor of the Armenian Genocide (Atmus Press Publications, 1996)

Grandma’s Tattoos, Suzanne Khardalian (2011)

According to Erin Mouradian, “a deal was made by Arousiag’s mother with a Turkish family and Arousiag was in the custody of a Turkish family but was treated horribly–all she ever elaborated on was that they barely fed her.”

Darfur Women Action Group (DWAG) is a women-led anti-atrocities nonprofit organization founded in 2009. DWAG seeks to empower and amplify the voice of the communities impacted by genocide in Darfur and to provides a platform for the international community to hear directly from those who are impacted the most by the ongoing violence in SudanFor more, see: www.darfurwomenaction.org

Defne, Akyurek, “The Rhetoric of Denial in the Cases of the Armenian and Bosnian Genocides,” Unpublished Final Paper for HIST 239: Genocide and Women seminar (December 2022).

Asya Darbinyan, Ph.D. is a visiting assistant professor at the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Clark University, where she offers courses on Genocide and Women, the Armenian Genocide, the History of Armenia and the History of Genocide. She earned her Ph.D. in history at the Strassler Center under the direction of Prof. Taner Akçam. Dr. Darbinyan’s research and teaching expertise stand at the intersection of Armenian history, the history of the Russian Empire, genocide, refugees and humanitarian interventions, with a focus on the agency and actions of refugees in addressing their suffering and plight. Her book chapter “Humanitarian Crisis at the Ottoman-Russian Border: Russian Imperial Responses to Armenian Refugees of War and Genocide, 1914-15” appeared in the edited volume Aid to Armenia: Humanitarianism and Intervention from the 1890s to the present (by Manchester University Press) in September 2020. Her article “Recovering the Voices of Armenian Refugees in Transcaucasia: Accounts of Suffering and Survival,” appeared in the Fall-Winter 2020 issue of the Armenian Review. She is a recipient of multiple scholarships and grants, most recently, the Aurora Humanitarian Initiative’s Vartan Gregorian Scholarship to revise and expand her dissertation into a book manuscript.