Author: nina hovnanian

TURKISH INTELLECTUALS WHO HAVE RECOGNIZED THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: ALI NESIN

By MassisPost
Updated: March 13, 2015

By Hambersom Aghbashian

Huseyin Ali Nesin (born in 1957 in Istanbul) is a Turkish
mathematician. After graduating from Saint Joseph Lisesi (Junior
high school) in 1973, he completed his high school study at College
Champittet, Lausanne – Switzerland where he finished in 1977. Then
he gained his degree in mathematics at Universite Paris 7, in 1981,
and earned his PhD degree in Mathematics from Yale University, New
Haven, USA in 1985. He was a visiting Assistant Professor at Notre
Dame University(1987-1988), and Assistant Professor at University
of California at Irvine (1988-1991), and then Associate Professor
(1991-1996). Since 1996, he is a Professor, Chair of Mathematics
Department at Istanbul Bilgi University. Professor Nesin has published
many Academic Books and Monographs, Undergraduate and Graduate
Level Mathematics Books and others. Also has published many research
articles. He is the editor in chief of (Matematik Dunyasi -The World of
Mathematics), Director of the Corporation of the Turkish Mathematical
Society , Founder of the Nesin Mathematics Village at Sirince*, Member
of the advisory board of the Hrant Dink Foundation and many others.(1)

Under the title “Intellectuals Solidarize with Hrant Dink”,
” wrote, “A number of leading Turkish
intellectuals have launched a new civil disobedience action declaring
themselves accomplices of Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink whose
most recent prosecution in a series launched by Turkish courts is
based on opinions he expressed in an interview with the Reuters news
agency. The action comes in the wake of an Amnesty International (AI)
statement on Dink that said the human rights watchdog organization
was dismayed at recent reports that yet another case had been opened
against Dink on charges of “denigrating Turkishness” under Article 301
of the Turkish Penal Code. The AI warned that if Dink was arrested
on any of the charges leveled against him, he would be declared a
‘Prisoner of Conscience’ on the international arena.” Professor Ali
Nesin was one of the intellectuals who signed the civil disobedience
action. Dink has been shot dead (January 19, 2007) in front of the
offices of Agos newspaper which he founded.(2)

In December 2008, two hundred prominent Turkish intellectuals released
an apology for the “great catastrophe of 1915â~@³. This was a clear
reference to the Armenian Genocide, a term still too sensitive to use
so openly. The signatories also announced a website related to this
apology, and called on others to visit the site and sign the apology
as well. The complete, brief text of the apology says “My conscience
does not accept the insensitivity showed to and the denial of the
Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in
1915. I reject this injustice and for my share, I empathize with the
feelings and pain of my Armenian brothers and sisters. I apologize
to them.” Ali Nesin was one of the Turkish professors who has signed
the petition. (3)

On September 26, 2014, Today’s Zaman wrote “A group of academics,
journalists, artists and intellectuals have released a statement
condemning the harshest terms what they define as expressions that
include ‘open hatred and hostility’ towards Armenians in Turkish
schoolbooks, which were recently exposed by the newspapers Agos and
Taraf. A letter accompanying the text of the condemnation, written
by historian Taner Akcam, notes that including such expressions as
lesson material to teach children is a disgrace. The statement said
‘The revolutions history and history textbooks should be collected
immediately, with an apology issued to everyone and particularly to
Armenian students. The signees said textbooks in schools should seek
to encourage feelings of peace, solidarity and living together over
inciting hatred towards different religious and cultural groups. Ali
Nesin was one of the intellectuals who signed it.(4)

———————————

* The Nesin Mathematics Village is a small village of about 13,5
acres. It is owned by the Nesin Foundation and is a place where
young and old learn, teach, and think about mathematics in peaceful
remoteness. Unpretentious and unostentatious, the houses made out of
rock, straw and clay give off a simple welcoming air.

1- 2-

3-

4-

LATVIA UNDERSTANDS THE SORROW OF THE ARMENIAN PEOPLE

19:16, 13 March, 2015

YEREVAN, 13 MARCH, ARMENPRESS. Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly
of the Republic of Armenia Eduard Sharmazanov had a meeting with
Vice-Chairs of the Saeima of Latvia Inese LĔbiÅ~Fa-Egnere and Gundars
Daudze and Secretary of the Saeima Andrey Klementev in Riga. As the
Department of Information and Public Relations of the National Assembly
reports to “Armenpress”, Eduard Sharmazanov attached importance to
further enhancement and strengthening of Armenian-Latvian relations,
particularly the partnership between the parliaments of both countries
from the perspective of supporting each other in the bilateral format
and at international parliamentary assemblies. Sharmazanov wished the
Republic of Latvia success in the chairmanship of the Council of the
European Union.

Touching upon the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations, the
Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly condemned the current Turkish
authorities’ line of conduct and stated that Turkey persistently
continues its policy of denial. Eduard Sharmazanov voiced hope that
Latvia would be represented at a high level at the ceremonies for
commemoration of the Armenian Genocide and expressed his gratitude to
the Latvian parliamentarians for helping open the exhibition dedicated
to the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide at the National Library of
Latvia. In her turn, Vice-Chair of the Saeima Inese LĔbiÅ~Fa-Egnere
mentioned that Latvia understands the pain of the Armenian people.

PAUL HAIDOSTIAN : CERTAINS ARMENIENS COMMENCENT A PERDRE LEUR INTERET POUR LA CAUSE

L’Orient-Le Jour, Liban
11 mars 2015

Genocide de 1915

Tom de Waal et Paul Haidostian, le president de l’Universite Haigazian,
reaffirment la responsabilite turque dans les massacres, tout en
notant les changements de la perception de la communaute armenienne
au cours des dernières decennies.

” L’intention de detruire, en tout ou en partie, un groupe national,
ethnique, racial ou religieux, comme tel ” : c’est la definition
d’un genocide par le statut de Rome, qui explicite les règles
de fonctionnement elementaire de la Cour penale internationale
(CPI). Le terme n’a toutefois pas ete utilise, depuis le debut du
XXIe siècle en tout cas, pour definir la deportation et le massacre
de plus d’un million d’Armeniens entre 1915 et 1916 par le parti des
Jeunes Turcs, qui dirigeaient alors l’Empire ottoman. Ce n’est que
dans les annees 1940 qu’il fait son apparition, dans les travaux de
l’avocat americain d’origine polonaise Raphael Lemkin, mais il ne
deviendra courant que dans les annees 1960, raconte Thomas de Waal,
chercheur associe au Carnegie Endowment pour le departement Russie et
Eurasie, en presentant son dernier ouvrage sur le genocide armenien,
Great Catastophe, lors d’une conference au Carnegie Middle East Center
a Beyrouth. ” J’ai voulu consacrer mon livre au traumatisme engendre
par le genocide et sur la facon dont il a ete vecu par les generations
qui ont suivi, ainsi que sur la definition et l’utilisation du terme
“, explique-t-il, alors que le centième anniversaire du genocide doit
etre celebre le mois prochain.

Car si les evenements de 1915-1916 ont ete relayes par les medias de
l’epoque, les grandes puissances ne les ont utilises que sporadiquement
au fil des decennies, suivant leurs interets du moment.

Massacres par les Turcs, pourchasses par les Sovietiques par la suite,
les Armeniens durent attendre 1991 pour acceder a leur independance,
c’est-a-dire a la chute de l’Union sovietique. Entre-temps, des
groupes qualifies de ” terroristes ” ont (brièvement) emerge dans
les annees 1970-80, comme Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation
of Armenia (Asala) et le Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide
(JCAG), fomentant des attentats principalement contre des diplomates
turcs. Parallèlement, un debut de dialogue a ete secrètement
amorce entre des responsables armeniens et turcs. Cette volonte de
rapprochement a notamment ete mise en avant par le journaliste turc
d’origine armenienne Hrant Dink, assassine en 2007 et qui, comme le
rappelle Tom de Waal, avait coutume d’affirmer : ” La Turquie est a
la fois notre poison et notre antidote. ”

” 100 ans trop tôt “…

De fait, a l’heure actuelle, ” il est absurde de contester ce qui s’est
passe “, relève de son côte le pasteur Paul Haidostian, president de
l’Universite Haigazian, avant d’ajouter : ” Pour les Turcs, c’est
100 ans trop tôt, mais pour nous, c’est 100 ans trop tard. ” Mais
alors que la diaspora armenienne tente tant bien que mal, depuis
quelques decennies, de se reconstruire une identite, elle reste ”
limitee ” par le deni turc du genocide, deplore M. Haidostian. ” Il
est très important pour les Armeniens en particulier, comme pour le
Moyen-Orient en general, de voir des changements s’operer en Turquie.

Il est certain que des crimes de toutes sortes ont ete commis par
toutes les nations du monde ; mais dans ce cas-la, des gens ont
non seulement perdu leurs proches, mais on leur retire le droit a
la verite “, estime le pasteur. En attendant, l’utilisation meme
du terme de ” genocide ” demeure problematique, sans compter que ”
certains Armeniens commencent a perdre leur interet pour cette cause
“, affirme M. Haidostian.

À partir de la, comment operer ? Le genocide armenien est-il un fardeau
que seuls les descendants des victimes et des rescapes doivent porter
? ” Les attitudes armeniennes, souligne le directeur de Haigazian,
ont change, evolue au cours des dernières decennies. Pour nombre
d’Armeniens, tous les Turcs ne sont pas mauvais, et tous les Armeniens
ne sont pas angeliques non plus, et c’est cette nuance qui permettra
d’aborder de front le problème ” relationnel entre les deux camps.

Aujourd’hui, un dialogue a ete etabli, des echanges ont lieu entre les
deux pays. Mais comment corriger l’histoire? N’y a-t-il pas d’ouverture
possible ? se demande Paul Haidostian. ” Je pense que les Armeniens
devraient s’ouvrir a des changements en Turquie, non pas concernant le
terme genocide, mais sur la manière dont les evenements sont percus
dans ce pays, et c’est bien plus fructueux ” de changer les choses
au niveau societal qu’au niveau politique, juge-t-il.

EXHIBITION ON ARMENIAN AND ASSYRIAN GENOCIDE OPENS IN ALMELO

Assyrian International News Agency – AINA
March 13 2015

Posted 2015-03-13 18:28 GMT

An exhibition dedicated to the Armenian Genocide and the Assyrian
massacres opened at the public library in the Dutch city of Almelo
on March 12. The event was organized by the 1915 Committee created
by the Armenian and Assyrian communities of Almelo. As the Department
of Press, Information and Public Relations of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the Republic of Armenia reports to “Armenpress”, the event
began with opening remarks by leader of the Christian Union Party of
the Netherlands Ari Slob, Armenia’s Ambassador to the Netherlands
Dzyunik Aghajanyan and member of the Armenian National Committee
Minas Arsenyan.

The exhibition showcases eight components of the genocide perpetrated
in the early 20th century, the geography of the Armenian Genocide,
articles on the Armenian massacres and the Genocide on the front
pages of foreign newspapers, as well as data regarding the Assyrian
massacres.

The exhibition will run until March 21st.

EDWARD SHARMAZANOV MEETS LATVIA-ARMENIA INTER-PARLIAMENTARY FRIENDSHIP GROUP MEMBERS

18:33 13/03/2015 >> SOCIETY

Deputy Speaker of Armenian National Assembly Edward Sharmazanov met
with the members of Latvia-Armenia Inter-Parliamentary Friendship
Group of the Latvian Parliament.

During the meeting, he offered to discuss in the Latvian Parliament
the possibility of the adoption of the statement condemning the
Armenian Genocide.

Head of Latvia-Armenia Parliamentary Friendship Group Sergejs
Potapkins, in response, stated that they are ready to discuss the
adoption of the statement condemning the Armenian Genocide in the
Parliament of Latvia, the Armenian parliament’s press service reported.

Source: Panorama.am

OP-ED: EVALUATING EU POLICIES IN SOUTH CAUCASUS

Civil Georgia, Georgia
March 13 2015

Jos Boonstra and Laure Delcour / 13 Mar.’15 / 16:47

The European Union (EU) is reviewing its European Neighbourhood Policy
(ENP), launched in 2003 and last reviewed in 2011. The Arab spring
and continued unrest in several of Europe’s southern neighbours, plus
recent EU-Russia tensions over Ukraine, demand a serious overhaul of EU
policies in its neighbourhood. Even though a complete change of course
is unlikely, through a recent ‘green paper’ the European Commission
has launched a consultation – both in-house and externally – about
the ENP, including its policy for the six East European and Caucasus
countries – the Eastern Partnership (EaP) – with a view to reviewing
‘the principles on which the policy is based as well as its scope and
how its instruments should be used’. This article will focus on the
EU’s relations with the three South Caucasus countries of Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Georgia.

Time for a Reality Check

Launched in 2009, the EaP has offered new opportunities for South
Caucasus countries to develop their relationship with the EU. On a
bilateral basis, the main accomplishment of the EaP in the region has
been the conclusion of an Association Agreement (AA) including a Deep
and Comprehensive Free-Trade Areas (DCFTA) with Georgia. Moreover,
all three countries are aiming for (albeit at different speeds) visa
liberalisation, which also requires substantial reforms in key areas
such as migration management or the fight against corruption.

With the EaP, the EU has emerged in the South Caucasus as an agent
for domestic change (at least in Georgia, to some degree in Armenia
and to a much lesser extent in Azerbaijan). But EU-inspired change
has its limits, as the EU is only as influential as South Caucasus
states allow it to be. Reforms often remain shallow and local elites
carefully calculate the high short-term costs against longer-term (and
vaguer) benefits. At the same time, by making its AA/DCFTA offer the
main bilateral ‘take-it-or leave-it’ package, the EU has put itself
in a difficult situation. So far, no plan B has been developed for
countries that seek deeper relations with the EU but not AA or DCFTA.

The EaP’s multilateral track is also in need of revision as it is
incapable of handling the growing differences between South Caucasus
countries in their relationships with the EU. At the political level,
the work of the multilateral track is affected by regional tensions and
conflicts. For instance, the work of the EaP’s parliamentary dimension
(Euronest) has often been paralysed by divergences between Armenia and
Azerbaijan. Standard bilateral European Parliament Delegations with
South Caucasus (or East European) countries would be more practical
as is already the case with Moldova, Ukraine and soon Georgia.

At the technical level, thematic ‘platforms’ are mainly EU-driven
and their content primarily reflects EU concerns. The platform on
economic integration is a blatant example of this. The emphasis
on approximation with EU trade regulations is relevant to Georgia,
but less so to Armenia and Azerbaijan. Other platforms (for example,
on democracy, good governance, and stability) also inspire uneven
interest among the three partners.

However, the multilateral track does offer a useful framework for
representatives of the three EU partners to meet. Regional tensions
and conflicts feed into high-level meetings, but thematic platforms
and panels provide fora where officials from Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Georgia and East European states can discuss their respective reform
experiences. In addition, the non-governmental formats (the Civil
Society Forum, the Business Forum) have fostered contacts between
South Caucasian societies. Meanwhile, the EaP’s six flagship projects
– from integrated border management to environmental governance –
need careful evaluation. Fruitful projects should be continued and
strengthened, while those that have not produced results after five
years should be either reformed or scrapped.

The Way Ahead

It is in the EU’s interest that the Caucasus becomes a stable and
democratic region. But the EU has little influence to make this happen
without two currently missing ingredients: a much more substantial
engagement on security challenges and a clear finalite for its Eastern
partners. The Russian authoritarian model will keep traction as it
pretends to solve the short-term worries of some of these states
and to safeguard the incumbent regimes. At the very least, the EU
should be ready to fully support those countries that do opt for
in-depth political and economic reforms. Such an approach would not
prevent the EU from setting democracy and human rights benchmarks
with authoritarian states such as Azerbaijan.

The EU should also increasingly focus on linking EU member-state
societies to those of the South Caucasus. This requires shifting
its policy paradigm from narrow legal and technical approximation to
broader societal integration, for instance through people-to-people
contacts. Europe’s attractiveness remains high – also in Armenia
and Azerbaijan – and in the long run will be more influential than
short-sighted Russian propaganda. Civil society cooperation, visa
liberalisation policies, and support to educational exchanges have
been overshadowed by the EU’s focus on AA/DCFTA negotiations. However,
societal links should be turned into both a key priority in current
relations and a basis for a deeper long-term partnership.

The EaP sought to help stabilise the EU’s South Caucasus neighbours
but lacked a security component from the outset. Neither a harder
security posture from the EU, nor success in settling protracted
conflicts in the South Caucasus (without Russian involvement and
agreement), are on the table. The current EU engagement in security
matters is largely confined to the Common Security and Defence
Policy (CSDP) border monitoring mission in Georgia (EUMM) and the
participation of an EU Special Representative in the Geneva talks
between Georgia and Russia. Besides stepping up EU engagement through
NATO and the Organisation for Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
at the Minsk talks concerning Nagorno-Karabakh, there is little more
the EU can do. Specific Caucasus security strategies by the EU would
seem overambitious since member states – for a variety of reasons –
will likely not support heavier involvement in the region’s security.

Nonetheless, the region’s protracted conflicts remain volatile and
inflammable.

However, the EU could more strongly support the reform of the
security sectors of those countries willing to engage, for instance
by assisting in reforming partners’ police, border guards, judicial
systems, and democratic oversight mechanisms. This should be possible
in Georgia (and already undertaken to some degree), and it could be
worthwhile to investigate such options with Armenia and Azerbaijan,
perhaps by linking it to confidence building measures between both
adversaries. Furthermore, there are elements of security sector
reform (SSR) in the EU’s visa liberalisation policies with Caucasus
countries as these affect some aspects of the police, border guards
and judicial systems; this can potentially be an entry point for
broader SSR engagement.

The EU cannot fix the Caucasus region, but it can have a positive
bearing on its development, provided that it can design a clearer and
firmer long-term vision. The EU should seek to play a responsible and
more active security role in the South Caucasus by being prepared
for further problematic relations with Russia, and being ready to
cope with a shifting, complex, and uncertain domestic and regional
environment. Also, the EU will need to adopt a more flexible bilateral
approach complemented by renewed multilateral cooperation formats
via the EaP. Last but certainly not least, given its attractiveness
to South Caucasus societies, the EU should place societies and
people-to-people contacts at the core of its policies in all three
countries.

This article is based on a longer document entitled ‘A broken region:
Evaluating EU policies in the South Caucasus’, FRIDE Policy Brief 193
(28 January 2015), published under the Cascade project.

About the authors: Jos Boonstra is head of the Eastern Europe,
Caucasus and Central Asia programme at FRIDE Laure Delcour is
scientific coordinator and research fellow of the EU FP7 Cascade
project at the Fondation Maison des Sciences de l’Homme

ARMENIAN NATIONAL PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA TO PERFORM AT WALT DISNEY CONCERT HALL

By MassisPost
Updated: March 13, 2015

LOS ANGELES — The Armenian National Philharmonic Orchestra (ANPO),
one of the leading orchestras of the former Soviet Union, under
the direction of Artistic Director and Principal Conductor Eduard
Topchjan performs at Walt Disney Concert Hall, Tuesday, May 12, at
8 pm. The concert marks the first time the 90-year-old institution
has performed at Walt Disney Concert Hall.

The program featuring music by Armenian composers opens with
Khachaturian’s Spartacus Suite from his acclaimed ballet. The next
work on the program is well-known classical and film score composer
Tigran Mansurian’s Violin Concerto, featuring Ms. Anush Nikoghosyan.

The program closes with Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 5.

The ANPO concert is dedicated to the Centennial of Armenian Genocide.

The Armenian National Philharmonic Orchestra (ANPO) is based in
Yerevan, Armenia. Established 90 years ago by Arshak Adamian and
Alexander Spendiaryan, it is the national center of professional
orchestral music in Armenia. In October 2000, Eduard Topchjan was
appointed the Artistic Director and Principal Conductor of the ANPO.

Being led to the new millennium by Maestro Topchjan the ANPO
is committed to promoting cultural, musical awareness in local
audiences, regularly performing classical and operatic music in
addition to national and contemporary music. Since its foundation, the
orchestra has performed most of the classical repertoire. Many of the
world’s leading artists, such as David Oistrakh, Sviatoslav Richter,
Mstislav Rostropovitch, Emil Gilels, Renato Bruson, Steven Isserlis,
Misha Maisky, Sergei Nakariakov, Boris Berezovsky, Natalia Gutman,
Giuseppe Giacomini, Isabelle Faust, Julia Fischer, Pinchas Zukerman,
Gidon Kremer, Yuri Bashmet, Placido Domingo and many others, as well
as already established and emerging Armenian musicians, have appeared
with this orchestra. The ANPO features the works of Armenian and
international composers and is committed to supporting the performance
of new orchestral works in programs interesting not only for regular
visitors and connoisseurs, but also for tourists and young people. The
ANPO serves as Ambassador of Armenian music worldwide and tours
regularly. Since 1989, the ANPO has toured extensively throughout
the U.S., Canada, Austria, Germany, France, Switzerland, Luxembourg,
Lebanon, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Greece, Iran, Cyprus,
Turkey, Russia, and the U.A.E. Recent tours were to Japan in 2008 with
15 concerts, and Germany and Slovakia in 2010, and additional tours
in 2014 and 2015 to Italy, Germany, France and Scandinavian countries.

More than 30 CDs have been released with the orchestra’s recordings.

The most recent ones – Armenian Rhapsody, released in 2011 by BIS
Records, Sweden and Mozart Piano Concerti and Overtures released by
Oehms Classics, Germany in 2014, were highly acclaimed by international
reviewers.

Eduard Topchjan began conducting in 1991. Since then, he has founded
the Serenade Chamber Orchestra and won prizes at various international
competitions, such as Valentino Bucchi and Valzolda. Topchjan made
his debut with the ANPO in 2000. In 2001, after being appointed
Artistic Director and Principal Conductor he appeared with the ANPO
in Moscow, and again in 2003 at the Bolshoi Theater. This was followed
by the ANPO tours throughout the Czech Republic, Germany, Slovakia and
France. In 2008, the ANPO led by Topchjan made a very successful tour
in Japan with 15 concerts. More recently, the ANPO and Topchjan toured
Slovenia, Italy, Austria, Germany and Slovakia. Topchjan has also been
the principal conductor of the Yerevan International Music Festival
since 2007. Also in 2007, he was granted the title of Meritorious
Worker of Arts of Armenia. Other honors include being awarded a Gold
Medal of the Ministry of Culture of Armenia in 2011, and knighthood
awarded by the Italian Order of Merit for Labour in 2013.

Young Armenian violinist Anush Nikoghosyan was born in Yerevan. She
studied with Distinguished Teacher of Armenia Petros Haykazian
and currently studies at the Hochschule fur Musik und Theater
Munchen (class of Prof. Christoph Poppen), with parallel classes
in Yerevan with Eduard Topchjan. Since 2014, Anush has been
studying master-classes with Professor Julia Fischer. As a soloist
she has appeared with Deutsche Radio Philharmonie, the Armenian
National Philharmonic Orchestra, the Kaerntner Sinfonieorchester,
Kurpfaelzisches kammerorchester Mannheim, the Moravian Philharmonic
Orchestra, the Kaunas Chamber Orchestra, the Armenian Chamber Players,
Ural Philharmonic Orchestra, Lithuanian National Philharmonic Orchestra
and other orchestras under the baton of Eduard Topchjan, Dmitri Liss,
Leos Svarovsky, Pavel Berman, Alexander Treger, Emmanuel Siffert,
Markus Bosch, Ernest Hoetzl and other conductors. Anush has won prizes
at numerous international violin competitions, most important from
them: 1st prize in 2010 “International Kaerntner Sparkasse Woerthersee”
competition (Austria). Following this significant win, Anush received
many invitations in some of the most prominent concert halls and with
renowned orchestras, including an invitation to perform at the well
known “Pacific Music Festival Sapporo” (Japan) as a soloist under Fabio
Luisi. Anush Nikoghosyan toured Armenia, Lithuania, Russia, England,
U.A.E., France, Czech Republic, Germany, Slovakia and Austria. She
often performs works by contemporary composers, among them: Mansurian,
Yerkanian, Dott, Penderecki, Zakaryan, Israelyan, Chaushian and others.

REVUE DE PRESSE
Apprenons et prenons des leçons…
Nadine Garabédian, PhD Présidente Machrou’Watan

Je ne peux pas comprendre ni même concevoir que nous Libanais de la
diaspora n’avons rien compris à l’utilité de la solidarité humaine,
voire à la solidarité tout court. Si nous devions comparer deux
communautés numériquement importantes, qui me touchent
particulièrement, puisque j’en suis issue, je soulignerai l’importance
de la communauté libanaise > face à la communauté
arménienne >, 12 millions face à 6 ou 7 millions… Deux
communautés dont les histoires sociopolitiques sont bien différentes,
mais dont l’essence même est celle de la préservation et la
conservation des valeurs, de la culture, de la langue et de la nation
et ce, au travers des réseaux transnationaux qui transcendent le vécu
quotidien et qui, au gré des circonstances, pourront transformer la
nation en soi.

Presque 6 millions d’Arméniens vivent de nos jours en diaspora. À
l’image des autres peuples, les Arméniens sont attachés à leur terre
et l’exil engendre un nationalisme exacerbé. Loin de conduire au refus
d’intégration dans le pays d’accueil, ce phénomène suscite en retour
le besoin de défendre > terre. Ce sentiment de défense
territoriale redonne à l’identité une vitalité nouvelle et estompe les
rivalités politiques intercommunautaires qui prirent forme au XIXe
siècle.

Le mythe idéologique d’un État-nation arménien, construit et perpétué
par la logique de la diaspora, constitue à lui seul l’élément
déterminant de la lutte sociopolitique des communautés dans les pays
hôtes. Il contribue à renforcer le ciment identitaire face à des
politiques intégrationnistes qui mettent en péril la construction de
cet État-nation. Toute production idéologique étant systématiquement
articulée autour d’une interprétation de la société d’accueil,
l’Arménie mythique est construite à partir du modèle sociopolitique de
ces sociétés. Le déracinement semble être la source d’une
communautarisation autour d’une idéologie qui, transcendant les
différences des pays d’accueil, se fonde sur l’histoire commune pour
reformuler l’identité dans un ensemble culturel qui dépasse l’arménité
; par ensemble culturel, nous entendons les cultures originelles des
différentes communautés. L’idéologie, façonnée, ravive la mémoire
collective et renforce le système d’appartenance à une même nation
historique qui conduira à l’idéologisation de son État-nation.

À la différence de la communauté arménienne de la diaspora, où toute
la dynamique transnationale est portée vers la terre des ancêtres, la
communauté libanaise constituée de presque 12 millions d’individus
répartis dans le monde, quant à elle, est composée d’une infinité
d’individualités et d’idéologies, dont le développement est perçu non
comme une finalité, mais plutôt comme une étape vers une
sédentarisation permanente.

Par ailleurs, plus les Libanais de la diaspora seront privés de leur
solidarité collective et de leur autodétermination à la création de
liens transnationaux, plus le désir de retour en terre libanaise
deviendra difficile et aléatoire. La reproduction des légitimités et
des conflits communautaires libanais qui sont mis en exergue dans les
pays d’accueil, en particulier dans le pays des droits de l’homme et
du citoyen cristallisent les particularismes, et la légitimité de
chacun sera remise en cause et mettra en danger l’unité de la
diaspora. Les Libanais se perçoivent comme une collectivité
constamment à la recherche d’un enracinement permanent et à la
recherche d’une reconnaissance individuelle permanente qui va au-delà
de la logique propre à la diaspora.

Cette logique de la diaspora, propre aux Arméniens, s’est imposée
d’elle-même comme une stratégie rationnelle. De plus, l’invariabilité
de ce processus d’adaptation constitue un moyen de poursuivre la
logique obsessionnelle. Les bases de cette logique sont devenues avec
le temps une alternative qui a permis aux attentes des Arméniens, où
qu’ils se trouvent, d’être satisfaites. L’entité arménienne que
constitue la diaspora s’est engagée dans un processus d’aliénation de
sa nature propre, comme une étape temporaire de la réalité arménienne.
Par opposition, le > n’est plus perçu comme une logique ou
une mentalité, mais comme un idéal face aux problèmes immédiats,
complémentaires de cette même logique. Où que ces communautés soient
établies et quelle que soit leur provenance, le mot d’ordre de la
diaspora est suivi à la lettre.

Ainsi, lors du séisme qui a frappé l’Arménie en 1986, la diaspora
s’est mobilisée et a permis à l’ex-Arménie soviétique de panser ses
blessures. Les communautés agissent en tant que partie fragmentée dans
les pays d’accueil et en tant qu’agrégat au sein de la communauté. Par
ailleurs, si cette fragmentation ou cet agrégat sont perçus comme une
évidence des phénomènes transétatique et transnationale, on peut
facilement affirmer qu’un degré d’autonomie accompagne les parties
divisées ou réunies. Le degré d’autonomie devient, dès lors, un
facteur déterminant du rôle et de l’influence élaborés par les entités
non étatiques.

Absente chez la communauté libanaise, cette logique est plutôt
communément appelée >. Elle se résume à
compenser par des attitudes individualistes et parfaitement égoïstes,
un manque de référence patriotique et nationale, à affirmer entre les
différentes composantes de la société des identités irrationnelles
basées sur des discours sociopolitiques manipulateurs qui engendrent
comparaisons sociales et individuelles renforçant ainsi la
compétitivité inter et intra communautaire. Ainsi, devenir leader
social, culturel ou autre, sans aucune référence à la >,
laquelle n’existe en réalité que dans l’imaginaire individuel, devient
le critère de loin le plus important pour affirmer son identité et son
appartenance à cette nation. La diaspora libanaise de France, au lieu
de former une entité unique et soudée qui puisse transcender ses
conflits internes, alimente les dissensions en son sein et ravive les
identités individuelles.

Étant donné l’hétérogénéité ethnico-religieuse de la diaspora
libanaise, cette dernière n’arrive pas encore à tisser un lien
communautaire authentique qui transcende les dissensions et qui
autorise une solidarité communautaire basée sur des critères
nationalistes et impliquant une dévotion sans limites au pays. Ce lien
transnational, existant chez les communautés arméniennes et juives, et
qui renforce l’adhésion totale aux valeurs identitaires auprès de ses
membres, est absent ou inexistant, et ce, précisément parce que la
maturité identitaire > n’existe pas et ne pourra
réapparaître tant que les individualismes et les intérêts personnels
n’ont pas été mis de côté, aux dépens de la nation dans sa globalité.
Ces communautarismes, qui ont évolué dans une société basée sur le
féodalisme et le clientélisme, finissent par enrayer l’appartenance au
groupe et tentent d’implémenter un système qui soit identique à celui
du pays natal. Ainsi, la reproduction d’un même cas de figure ici, en
France, pousse les membres de la communauté libanaise à refuser toute
forme de solidarité communautaire, et essayent au travers de la
réussite individuelle de se frayer un chemin dans le pays d’accueil.

La diaspora arménienne, quant à elle, en établissant un lien entre les
membres de son groupe, prétend modifier l’organisation en mettant en
exergue des réseaux parallèles qui l’autorisent à se gérer dans sa
globalité. Elle fait en sorte d’appréhender et de cadrer les
situations de manière qu’elle puisse, le cas échéant, intervenir dans
les décisions. Ce qui ne sera jamais à l’initiative de la diaspora
libanaise.

samedi 14 mars 2015,
Stéphane (c)armenews.com

Ugly Scenes 2

Lragir.am
Country – 14 March 2015, 16:12

Once reversed, one will never go forward, the saying is. Another
scandal has matured in the Heritage Party after two representatives of
this party Armen Martirosyan and Ruben Hakobyan met with Serzh
Sargsyan.

Another member of this party, Zaruhi Postanjyan, called them “Serzh
Sargsyan’s clients”.

“Perhaps they went in the capacity of clients of 26 Baghramyan Avenue.
This participation has nothing to do with the Heritage Party. Maybe
they acted as sole proprietors but not as politicians and did not
represent the Heritage Party,” Zaruhi Postanjyan said, adding that the
board of the Heritage Party was against that meeting.

Those who met with Serzh Sargsyan say they did not go to the
presidential office on their own, and Raffi Hovhannisian, the leader
of the party, was aware of it.

The press reported that the board meeting did not discuss a format,
the members of the board were against a meeting with Serzh Sargsyan in
an inclusive format whereas they visited the presidential palace in a
delegation of two.

Now they are waiting for what Raffi Hovhannisian will say who is never
“present” at such moment. What is this? Internal democracy of a
political party a unique example of which the Heritage Party,
nevertheless, is, or a usual political trick of balancing with one
foot outside and another foot inside?

After the collapse of the “popular movement” Serzh Sargsyan is freely
“realigning” the field to build the next government. He is having
meetings with the “political forces” in the result of which he will
make a decision on their future role and place.

The forces called political understand what is happening (they
understand such things well, one may say they only understand such
things that are related to tradeoff and opportunities to appear in the
next government). Hence, they are making their choice.

The Heritage Party has appeared in an ambiguous situation, and their
game is ambiguous in this setting. On the one hand, the party did not
have a decision on meeting with Serzh Sargsyan. On the other hand, its
two members met with him.

Apparently, room for reverse has been left in case Serzh Sargsyan
“deceives” this party while forming the next parliament.

They deceived it in the 2012 parliamentary election when there were
not enough seats for the Heritage Party and Raffi had to resign.

Then the presidential election of 2013 followed when nobody could
figure out Raffi’s behavior. He rushed from the square to the
presidential office and then to Moscow.

Then he joined the most ridiculous format of the Armenian politics –
the troika – where, however, he was not given the freedom to make
speeches in rallies until two experienced traders visited Serzh
Sargsyan.

The Armenian political forces have two ways: cooperate with the
government or do politics, forming a new quality environment and
relations.

This is a very complicated and endless path, provided the level of
degradation of the Armenian public and political environment and lack
of quality and requires sacrifices.

Both ways are honest. Dishonesty is maneuvering between these two.

Armenian FM: We will never question either the fact of the Armenian
Genocide or the importance of its international condemnation and
recognition

by Karina Manukyan
Saturday, March 14, 15:17

“We will never question either the fact of the Armenian Genocide or
the importance of its international condemnation and recognition,”
Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandian said in an interview
with Dnevnik Daily,Slovenia.

Asked about the Armenian0Turkish protocols, Nalbandian recalled that
Turkey has returned to the language of preconditions, trying to link
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement with Armenia-Turkey
normalization. Meanwhile, many countries condemn the attempts to link
the two issues saying it could harm both the processes. One of the
old Turkish preconditions, reanimated after Zurich, was related to the
Armenian Genocide recognition. “But Armenia has repeatedly said and
insisted: we will never question the reality of the Armenian Genocide
and the importance of its international recognition and condemnation,”
the minister said.

“Unfortunately, Turkey did not have courage and wisdom to ratify and
implement agreed and signed protocols. So this is not about waiting
for anybody to play a role to push forward normalization of relations
between Armenia and Turkey. First of all, Turkey has to reconsider
what it has done wrong. Back then I had warned that with this approach
of Turkey, their proclaimed policy of “zero problems with neighbors”
would turn into “zero neighbor without problems”. Nowadays everyone is
reaffirming this view,” the minister said.

To note, on Feb 16 President Serzh Sargsyan addressed a letter to the
President of the RA National Assembly Galust Sahakyan, informing him
about his decision to recall the Armenian-Turkish Protocols from the
RA NA. The Armenian President’s press service quotes Sargsyan as
saying, “It is already six years since the Armenia-Turkey Protocols
were signed. During the entire period, Armenia has always demonstrated
a consistent approach in bringing the protocols to life. However, we
have to state the lack of Turkish authorities’ political will, the
distortion of the letter and spirit of the protocols and the
continuous stimulation of preconditions. Simultaneously, as the 100th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide approaches, the policy of
negationism and historical revisionism is gaining new momentum. I have
spoken many times about the non-inexhaustibility of time, including
from the podium of the UN General Assembly in September 2014. I repent
that the Turkish leadership failed to listen to Armenia’s exhortation.
Hence, I have made a decision to recall from the National Assembly of
the Republic of Armenia, the Protocol on the Establishment of
Diplomatic Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic
of Turkey and the Protocol on Development of Relations between the
Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey which were signed on
the 10th of October of 2009 in Zurich.”