Author: Talar Tumanian

The MICHELIN Guide’s Only Armenian Restaurant in America

Talar Tumanian

The MICHELIN Guide's Only Armenian Restaurant in America

California's Zhengyalov Hatz is built upon generations of culinary traditions and serves only one main dish, its namesake, made from fresh greens wrapped in thin, lavash bread.

Armenian cuisine dates back thousands of years. Sitting at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, Armenia has unique culinary traditions that have blossomed throughout centuries of history. Below, we do a deep dive on the MICHELIN Guide's only Armenian restaurant in the United States, located just outside of Los Angeles in Glendale, California.

Zhengyalov Hatz has brought a piece of that gastronomic heritage to America with its only main menu item, zhingyalov hats. I ask why there’s only one menu item, and owner Vresh Osipian explains simply, “It’s my favorite food. Zhingyal means greens, and hats means bread. It's bread with herbs.”

He’s excited to share his culture with me. “Armenian food is unique with a big personality. Our recipes have been passed down from generation to generation, from families a long time ago. Originally, when people had nothing to eat, they found little flowers and greens. They made some lavash and put the greens inside to feed the children.”

Despite the streamlined offerings, Osipian is hardly new to the culinary scene. He had previously opened several Zhengyalov Hatz locations in Yerevan, Armenia and Moscow, Russia. Visiting Glendale years ago, Osipian was inspired to share his favorite food with America, with, “the purpose to bring food here that is very popular and loved in Armenia.”

Eating at the restaurant transports diners to Armenia. “We have exactly the same design as our restaurants in Yerevan," says Osipian. "It’s a national and traditional style of 'Old Yerevan', our capital.” He shows me a newly framed photo on the wall that depicts an ancient Armenian family baking thin lavash bread in an underground tonir oven.

And despite the volume—Zhengyalov Hatz makes hundreds of fresh zhingyalov hats daily—they hit with customers every time and combat waste through knowing their audience. “Every day, we receive fresh greens from Fresno. We never keep leftovers overnight, so we order the approximate right amount for each day.”

So what's the secret sauce behind Zhengyalov Hatz's delectable dish? “It’s completely vegan with spinach, green chard, red chard, cilantro, dill, sorrel, chervil, white onion, and more. All together, twelve different types of herbs.” Since different families have different recipes, there’s no one correct way to make zhingyalov hats. “Everyone chooses their own recipe. For our greens, we don’t use parsley or garlic.”

I watch as a cheerful chef from Ukraine adds the finishing touches. “It takes less than a minute to make this bread because the dough is very clean," says Osipian. "The herbs are finely chopped, and then we add sunflower oil and some seasoning.”

It's important to note where the chef comes from, as after four years in Los Angeles, Zhengyalov Hatz has built a loyal following, but also expanded their customers and staff beyond Armenians. "We have a lot of excellent chefs and customers, not only Armenian. All different nationalities.”

Enhancing the traditional flavors of the flatbread are the other offerings—all of which are vegetarian—including okroshka, made from cucumbers and dill, and paxlava, their take on the Greek baklava. "We make our paklava from scratch and use honey, not sugar, so it’s not too sweet," adds Osipian. The vibe, is meant to be more homestyle Armenian than modern, cultural mecca. “Everything is Armenian. We have Armenian music playing all day, and some people say it’s like going to grandma’s house. Same food and same environment. It brings back a lot of memories.”

And beyond the plate, therein lies the true secret sauce behind Zhengyalov Hatz; its celebration of Armenian culture across all touchpoints. "Armenia became the first Christian nation in the world, starting in the year 303. We have old churches, and Yerevan is a beautiful, bright city. A lot of trees, a lot of parks, a lot of sights to see. Welcome to Armenia.” Coming up soon will be an expanded menu including more of the meat-centric dishes of the region. “We’re working now to add Armenian lahmajun or shawarma—more meaty stuff—because [we received] a lot of requests.”

And despite the press and accolades from the food world, Osipian and the restaurant's focus remains the same as when they opened their doors: “be friendly to everybody.” And done in delicious fashion, naturally.

Blinken accuses Russia of ‘weaponizing food’ with move to halt Ukraine grain deal

Talar Tumanian

 10:27,

YEREVAN, JULY 18, ARMENPRESS. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday accused Russia of “weaponizing food” after Moscow halted its participation in the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which has kept food supplies flowing out of Ukraine despite the war.

The deal was brokered by the United Nations and Turkey.

“So the result of Russia’s action today – weaponizing food, using it as a tool, as a weapon in its war against Ukraine – will be to make food harder to come by in places that desperately need it, and have prices rise.  We’re already seeing the market react to this as prices are going up,” Blinken said at a press conference.

He said that the deal had a “tremendously positive benefit”.

The U.S. Secretary of State added that Washington and Kiev ‘will look at whether there are any other options’.

“….the Ukrainians and we, others will look at whether there are any other options, but the challenge is this:  If Russia is ending this initiative and sending a message that grain cannot and other food products cannot leave Ukraine unimpeded, even if there are other options, I think it will likely have a profound chilling effect on the ability to pursue them as other countries, companies, shippers, et cetera will be very concerned about what happens to their ships and to their personnel if Russia is opposing the – any export of food products from Ukraine.  The whole point of this was to have a voluntary agreement that involved all of the relevant parties that was endorsed by the United Nations to make sure that there was safety, security, predictability in moving food out of Ukraine and to places that were desperately in need of it. So in the absence of that, I think, yes, we’ll look at – to see what else can be done to find other ways to get Ukrainian food products on the world market, including, again, as we’ve, as Ukraine has already been doing, moving things out through rail and by road.  But in terms of the volumes necessary, it’s really hard to replace what’s now being lost as a result of Russia weaponizing food,” he said.

Moscow announced on Monday it wouldn't extend the Ukraine grain deal over alleged non-compliance by other parties. In a statement reported by RT, the Russian Foreign Ministry added that Russia will no longer provide security guarantees for civilian vessels traversing the formerly exempted corridor in the Black Sea.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said that this latest decision “means the recall of maritime navigation security guarantees, the discontinuation of the maritime humanitarian corridor [and] the reinstatement of the ‘temporarily dangerous area’ regime in the north-western Black Sea.” Russian diplomats went on to accuse Ukraine of using the humanitarian corridor to carry out attacks on Russian targets.  

As for the Ukrainian grain shipments that were facilitated by the deal, the ministry claimed that the vast majority of those ended up in Europe, with several countries there allegedly lining their pockets.  

The statement pointed out that the whole mechanism, which was launched last summer, had ostensibly been designed to help avert famine in poorer nations.

Remembering Dr. Hovannisian: The Father of Armenian Studies

Talar Tumanian
 Sara Cohan Reflections, Diaspora 0

In academia, there are individuals who leave an unforgettable mark on their field, shaping it in profound ways that endure long after their passing. Dr. Richard G. Hovannisian, the Father of Armenian Studies, was undeniably one of those luminaries. As we reflect on his invaluable contributions, we remember that his influence extends far beyond the boundaries of academia; he was a mentor, an inspiration and a guiding force for all who ventured into the realm of teaching Armenian history.

Dr. Hovannisian’s dedication to scholarship was evident in his extensive body of work. His writing and compilation of books formed the very foundation of what we study today. Through meticulous research and an unwavering commitment to uncovering the truth, he unearthed and preserved the hidden chapters of our history. By doing so, he bestowed upon us a rich canon of materials that have deeply enriched our understanding of our past.

However, Dr. Hovannisian’s contributions were not confined to research alone. He recognized the importance of fostering a community of scholars and learners. He organized conferences that provided us with opportunities to come together, share our knowledge, and learn from one another. These gatherings not only expanded our understanding of buried histories but also forged strong bonds between us.

The relationships formed because of Dr. Hovannisian became the networks that propelled our work forward, enabling us to continue to expand and elevate the field of Armenian Studies.

Beyond his scholarly achievements, Dr. Hovannisian embodied the qualities of a true mentor and father figure. He was always there to guide and support us, offering his expertise, wisdom and encouragement. His presence provided reassurance that we were not alone on this journey of teaching Armenian history. From the early days of my career, I could always count on Dr. Hovannisian to speak at the workshops I helped run in the Los Angeles area and beyond. He believed in the importance of “showing up,” which was exemplified in his commitment to engaging with secondary level teachers. Whenever a workshop was held, we knew we could count on Dr. Hovannisian to address the teachers, delivering lectures that seamlessly intertwined the history of the Armenian Genocide with his own personal experiences growing up in Tulare. Through his articulate storytelling, he enabled American teachers to grasp the nuances of the Armenian American experience.

Dr. Hovannisian’s impact extended far. Together with his wife Vartiter, they traveled the world to expand the reach of Armenian Studies and provided endless support for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. As we mourn the loss of Dr. Hovannisian, we must remember that his legacy lives on through each and every one of us. He has paved the way for us to continue our journey towards justice and understanding, armed with the knowledge he imparted and the example he set. We stand upon the shoulders of a giant, and it is our responsibility to carry the torch forward.

In honoring his memory, let us recommit ourselves to the preservation of our history and the advancement of Armenian Studies. Let us cherish the relationships we have forged because of his efforts, knowing that they are the bedrock upon which our field thrives. Let us never forget the invaluable lessons Dr. Hovannisian taught us, as a scholar and a father to us all.

  •  Bio
  •  Latest Posts
Sara Cohan is a human rights and genocide education consultant. She worked for The Genocide Education Project for seventeen years as their education director. Her background combines research, study, curriculum development and teaching. She is a museum teacher fellow for the US Holocaust Museum and Memorial and worked extensively with the USC Shoah Foundation. In 2001, Cohan was named the research fellow for Teaching Tolerance, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center and later she served on their advisory board in 2012. She also studied in Mexico as a recipient of a Fulbright-Hays scholarship and studied Islamic influences in Europe as a fellow for the National Endowment for the Humanities. She was an expert lecturer at the Council of Europe's European Youth Centre in Budapest in 2009 and has worked with the Armenian Genocide Museum and Institute in Yerevan. Cohan has written articles and designed educational materials for a variety of organizations and publications. She is the granddaughter of an Armenian Genocide survivor.


Why deepening Russia-Azerbaijan ties should worry the United States

Talar Tumanian

By Sheila Paylan

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has left it with few friends, but Azerbaijan is an important exception. In fact, Moscow and Baku are effectively allies now. Just two days before the February 2022 invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev signed a wide-ranging political-military agreement, following which Aliyev declared that the pact “brings our relations to the level of an alliance.” A few months later, Azerbaijan signed an intelligence-sharing agreement with Russia.

This has proven catastrophic for Armenia, which has maintained close security ties with Russia since joining the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in 1992. In September 2022, Azerbaijan launched what the European Parliament called a “large-scale military aggression” against Armenia and, according to Armenia’s foreign minister, took over 150 square kilometers of Armenian territory. But the CSTO—to which Azerbaijan does not belong—refused to intervene on Armenia’s behalf. Washington stepped in to broker a ceasefire, and the European Union (EU) followed suit by sending a monitoring mission to the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, much to Russia’s and Azerbaijan’s discontent.

The Putin-Aliyev partnership has also spelled disaster for the breakaway republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, whose remaining 120,000 ethnic Armenians live under Russian protection after Azerbaijan’s 2020 offensive to reclaim the territory. Forty-four days and thousands of deaths later, Russia brokered a ceasefire stipulating the five-year deployment of 1,960 Russian armed peacekeepers along the line of contact in Nagorno-Karabakh and in control of the “Lachin Corridor,” the only road linking it to Armenia. At the time, analysts opined that Putin’s imposition had cemented Russia’s role in the region. According to the decree authorizing the deployment, Russia’s reason for sending peacekeeping troops was to “prevent the mass death of the civilian population of Nagorno-Karabakh.”

But the deployment has not prevented Azerbaijan from continuing to try to expel ethnic Armenians from what’s left of Nagorno-Karabakh. Last December, a group of Azerbaijanis set up a roadblock along the Lachin Corridor claiming to advocate for environmental rights in the region. But the roadblock in effect slowed the flow of goods into Nagorno-Karabakh, creating a humanitarian crisis. The United States and the EU, as well as Human Rights Watch and others, have called for Azerbaijan to unblock the Lachin Corridor. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Azerbaijan to do the same.

Instead, Azerbaijan solidified the blockade by installing an armed checkpoint at the mouth of the Lachin Corridor, thus effectively seizing control over it. The move was further condemned by the United States and EU, and led Armenia to seek renewed intervention from the ICJ. Russia issued tepid statements and then replaced its peacekeeping force commander in Nagorno-Karabakh. But such a fundamental change in the regime over the Lachin Corridor could not possibly exist without approval—however tacit—from the Kremlin. Video footage taken last month purports to show Russian peacekeepers accompanying Azerbaijani forces to install a concrete barrier near the checkpoint and hoist an Azerbaijani flag in adjacent Armenian territory.

Since the blockade began, traffic along the Lachin Corridor has been reduced to an all-time low. This makes it more difficult for essential humanitarian aid to pass into Nagorno-Karabakh. In the last seven months, Nagorno-Karabakh has turned into an open-air prison, with ethnic Armenian inhabitants increasingly deprived of food and medicine, and energy resources almost entirely drained. They may soon be forced to flee their ancestral homeland for good just to survive.

In May, Aliyev demanded the surrender of Nagorno-Karabakh authorities, suggesting that he might offer them amnesty should they accept Azerbaijani rule. Oddly, the US State Department praised Aliyev’s remarks on amnesty, glossing over other parts of his speech in which he threatened violence if the authorities did not surrender: “[E]veryone knows perfectly well that we have all the opportunities to carry out any operation in that region today… Either they will bend their necks and come themselves or things will develop differently now.”

But Washington’s seemingly tactful acquiescence to Azerbaijan’s growing aggression against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh in fact hurts US efforts to curb malign Russian influence and end Moscow’s war on Ukraine. The Russo-Azeri pact provides for enhanced economic ties, including in the gas and energy sectors, and has proven successful in helping preemptively circumvent Western sanctions against Russia. A deal between Baku and Brussels in July 2022 to double the flow of gas to Europe to wean it off Russian gas was soon followed by a deal in November 2022 between Baku and Moscow to increase gas imports from Russia to enable Azerbaijan to meet its new obligations to Europe.

In May, Russia and Iran agreed to complete a railroad that would link Russia to the Persian Gulf through Azerbaijan, thus providing a route through which Iran can directly send Russia more weapons and drones. One week later, during a summit of the Eurasian Economic Union, in which Aliyev participated as a guest for the first time, Putin stated that cooperation on developing this North-South railway is carried out “in close partnership with Azerbaijan.” Baku knows it can play both sides because it has backing from Moscow, while the West is blinded by non-Russian energy imports and dreams of regional stability.

If the West seeks to reduce tensions in the South Caucasus, it needs to step up its pressure on Azerbaijan. In the short term, this might include the threat of sanctions in response to further military action against Armenia and the continued refusal to unblock the Lachin Corridor, as well as lending support to Russia. By law, Azerbaijan cannot receive US military or foreign assistance unless it eschews military force to solve its disputes with Armenia, but the White House keeps letting Azerbaijan off the hook by waiving Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act and sending millions of dollars in military aid to Baku. Washington should treat Baku’s actions against Armenia as attempts at coercion, just as it does with Russian aggression against Ukraine.

For its part, Armenia has sought to unwind some of its security arrangements with Russia. Yerevan has refused to host CSTO military drills, send a representative to serve as CSTO deputy secretary general, sign a CSTO declaration to provide defense aid to Armenia, or accept the deployment of a CSTO monitoring mission in lieu of the EU-led mission. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has even threatened to terminate or freeze Armenia’s CSTO membership.

Even so, the West cannot reasonably expect Armenia to leave the CSTO and break with Russia without significantly helping Armenia diversify and mitigate its security, energy, and economic reliance on the Kremlin. As part of this, the United States may want to consider inviting Armenia to become a Major Non-NATO Ally. Washington should provide training and equipment to enhance Armenia’s defense capabilities and help it develop a more robust and independent security apparatus. The United States could also push forward on the prospect of building a small modular nuclear power plant in Armenia, providing an incentive for Armenia to decide against partnering with Russia on energy.

The West has stepped up its diplomatic efforts to facilitate a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which is good, but these efforts should not come at the cost of abetting the unfolding humanitarian disaster in Nagorno-Karabakh. Now is the time to compel Baku to cease its bellicose rhetoric and consent to an international presence in Nagorno-Karabakh to mediate dialogue with residents there and promote a more meaningful transition from war to lasting peace.

Sheila Paylan is a human rights lawyer and former legal advisor to the United Nations. She is currently a senior fellow in international law at the Applied Policy Research Institute of Armenia.


Armenia Security Council Secretary meets White House NSA in Washington, D.C.

Talar Tumanian

 09:33, 7 July 2023

YEREVAN, JULY 7, ARMENPRESS. Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia Armen Grigoryan has met with United States National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan in the White House.

“We discussed the regional and broader extra-regional security situation and challenges. In this context, I presented to my interlocutor the approaches of the Armenian side around a number of important directions. We spoke about issues of bilateral interest, in particular we emphasized the development of bilateral cooperation within the framework of energy, economy and democracy,” Grigoryan said in a statement on social media.

"Armenia’s withdrawal from the CSTO will bring Ukraine’s victory closer" – Armenian political scientist

Talar Tumanian
July 7 2023
  • JAMnews
  • Yerevan

Cooperation with France in the military sphere

“If the Armenians now stage a demarche and leave the CSTO [a military bloc operating under the leadership of Russia], this will seriously affect the war in Ukraine, bring victory closer, and save thousands of lives,” Andrias Ghukasyan, an Armenian political scientist, believes.

According to him, Russia’s exit from the security system has its price, but the West is “ready to compensate Armenia’s expenses, repair the damage and assist in restoring the security system.”

“In a year or two, when Ukraine achieves visible, tangible results, no one will compensate for our losses, a change in our position will no longer have any political significance. And now it is, it is of great importance.”

The political scientist also talked about military cooperation with France, stressing that President Macron himself hinted at this during a meeting with the Armenian community.

  • “Give me a chance” – Former Armenian Foreign Minister promises turning point in negotiations
  • “Baku uses ‘coercive diplomacy’ against Yerevan” – Thomas de Waal
  • “Negotiations or pressure on Armenia?”: shelling in NK during negotiations in Washington

According to Ghukasyan, the idea that nobody needs Armenia and the region, that either Russia or Turkey should be represented, is Russian propaganda.

The political scientist is convinced that Turkey’s goal is to “eliminate the sovereignty of Armenians through the Russians” by joining Armenia to the Russian Federation.

“Turkey’s plan is to eliminate the independence of Armenia. There are no such conditions, as a result of which Turkey and Azerbaijan will make peace with Armenia,” he said.

Political analyst Hovsep Khurshudyan believes that the Armenian authorities should resort to tough measures, including going to the international court

“I have exerted and will continue to exert more pressure on Ilham Aliyev than Nikol Pashinyan himself. It’s about Pashinyan. I am the only one who has a clear position and message on the Karabakh issue. Do not doubt my determination regarding Karabakh and Armenia as a whole,” Emmanuel Macron said at a meeting with the Armenian community in Marseille at the end of June.

Ghukasyan is sure that these words were really heard at this meeting and emphasizes Macron’s point that “the most serious problem for advancing Armenian interests is the position of the head of Armenia”:

“France is forced to say: the problem is in your power, we are ready to support Armenia, but there is no support, there is no opportunity, roughly speaking, we are unilaterally doing what we can.”

He also draws attention to the fact that Macron also spoke about the appointment of a military attaché at the French Embassy in Armenia.

“In this way, he proved to the representatives of the diaspora, the citizens of France, that France is ready to provide military assistance to Armenia,” the pollologist believes.

He considers the reason for the lack of progress in military cooperation in the West not the position of France, the United States or the European Union, but the Pashinyan government.

The analyst regards Armenia’s relations with the West as “failed”, being at the lowest level.

Ghukasyan claims that the situation dictates to take the steps that he proposed back in 2021, namely to develop the Armenian-French military cooperation and replace defense ties with the Russian Federation.

On the Paris meetings of the Minister of Defense of Armenia, as well as an expert’s commentary on cooperation with France in the field of defense

To the question, “what danger can France pose for Aliyev that he criticizes this country so sharply,” Ghukasyan replied:

“France is a nuclear power with a powerful army, a player that cannot be ignored. But there are other circumstances as well. Aliyev owns property in France, they can at least confiscate it, and this is a lot. Aliyev’s family members are being treated in France, there are many other issues.”

The day before, during a government meeting, the Prime Minister of Armenia said that criticism of international organizations and countries that realistically assess the humanitarian crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh “is part of the Azerbaijani policy of ethnic cleansing” in the region.

“In this regard, Azerbaijan has already launched a large-scale anti-propaganda against France for several months, on the official and public platforms of which there are targeted assessments and concerns are expressed about the illegal steps taken by Azerbaijan against the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh. Propaganda against France is aimed at preventing a possible targeted assessment of the humanitarian crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh by other countries,” he stressed.

Minister Andreasyan, Ambassador Alfonso Di Rizzo discuss prospects of developing Armenia-Italy cultural ties

Talar Tumanian

 14:12, 4 July 2023

YEREVAN, JULY 4, ARMENPRESS. Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sport Zhanna Andreasyan has met with the Ambassador of Italy to Armenia Alfonso Di Rizzo.

Andreasyan’s deputies Artur Martirosyan and Alfred Kocharyan also participated in the meeting.

Noting the historical ties between Armenia and Italy, Andreasyan said that this connection has been strengthened through continuous cooperation in various sectors.

“This meeting is yet another good opportunity to expand the prospects of new cooperations. We are ready to discuss new projects and ideas,” Andreasyan said.

In turn, the Italian Ambassador said that partnership between two countries starts with cultural relations, and that Armenia’s cooperation with Italy is mostly active in the area of culture.

The Minister and the Ambassador discussed prospects of development of Armenian-Italian cultural ties as part of various events, promotion of cultural values of both countries, such as manuscripts and works of art. The Italian delegation attached importance to Armenia’s experience in manuscript restoration and the need to share practice.

Other issues of mutual interest were also discussed.

Armenia hopes for intensive development of ties with Iran

Talar Tumanian
MEHR News Agency, Iran
July 3 2023

TEHRAN, Jul. 03 (MNA) – The Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia Armen Grigoryan hoped for intensive development of ties with Iran.

Armen Grigoryan made the remarks in a meeting with the outgoing Iranian ambassador to Armenia Abbas Badakhshan Zohouri.

Grigoryan thanked the Iranian ambassador for his support over the years of his tenure and wished him good luck in his future activities, Armen Press reported. 

The Armenian top official attached importance to the jointly implemented work and expressed hope that bilateral relations will continue to intensively develop for the welfare of the two peoples.

The Iranian ambassador, for his part, said that the Armenian-Iranian bilateral relations are based on a rich historical-cultural past.

"The close partnership of the past years is a testament to this", he added. 

Mehdi Sobhani, the former ambassador of Tehran to Damascus, is Iran's new ambassador to Yerevan. 

SKH/PR

‘We haven’t said our last word yet’: Traces of genocide, silence on the streets

Talar Tumanian
 DuvaR.english 
Turkey –


Friday June 23 2023 12:08 am

*Dr Özgür Sevgi Göral

On 18 June 2023, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that the bodies of Missak Manouchian and his comrade, partner and resistance fighter Mélinée Manouchian would be buried in the Panthéon, where the mausoleums of France's "national heroes" are located.1 Historian Annette Wieviorka underlines that, ironically, we owe the recognition of Misak Manouchian first in French politics and then in the field of memory to the Nazis and the collaborating French state. According to Wieviorka, we learn about Manouchian and the partisans who organised armed resistance in the Manouchian group mainly through the "Red Banner" printed by the Nazis in occupied France.2

The Red Banner was intended to propagandise the decision to execute 23 partisans of the Resistance and Partisans – Migrant Workers' Group (Francs-Tireurs et Partisans – Main-d'Œuvre Immigrée, FTP-MOI) who organised the anti-fascist armed resistance in the Paris region. On the poster, the names and origins of the 10 partisans, including Manouchian, all of them immigrants, some Polish, some Hungarian, some Italian, and some Hungarian, and the total number of attacks on the Nazis were given. Misak Manouchian is introduced as the leader of the partisans, with photographs, as follows: "Manouchian, Armenian, chief of the gang, 56 attacks, 150 killed, 600 wounded".

In her lecture on Manouchian, historian Wieviorka makes one more point. The crucial role of the Resistance and Partisans – Migrant Workers' Group, the resistance army of the French Communist Party (FCP), of which Manouchian was a member, in the anti-fascist armed resistance was not emphasised by the FCP itself during the Cold War years. During the 1920s, when Spanish, Polish and Italian workers first migrated to France for economic reasons, these units, organised internally by the FCP through publications in the mother tongue of migrant workers, became an irregular army of special resistance during the Nazi occupation and formed the backbone of anti-fascist resistance.

Wieviorka argues that the limited mention of this partisan group during the Cold War years was a requirement of the political line of the FCP; the post-1945 FCP is above all patriotic, French. Its political goal is to become a powerful institution of the post-war reconstruction process. Thorez, the leader of the party, made this clear in a speech on his return from Moscow: "Production is today the highest form of the class task, the task of the French people. Yesterday our weapon against the enemy was sabotage, armed action, today our weapon to foil the plans of the reactionary forces will be production."3

Manouchian's traces gradually fade in the FKP's imagination of the productive, hard-working, factory-working French proletarian. Those who wanted to emphasise this international heritage remained in the minority within the party. Nevertheless, in the 1950s, Manouchian's anti-fascist memory began to partially surface. In 1950, a street in 20th Paris was named "Manouchian Group". Then, in 1955, Louis Aragon wrote the poem Strophes pour se souvenir for the Manouchian group, which Léo Ferré performed in 1961 as a song called The Red Banner.4

Born in 1906 in Besni, Adıyaman, Missak Manouchian, a revolutionary and poet, carpenter and partisan, whose entire family, except for his older brother, was massacred during the Armenian Genocide5, and the name of the partisan group of migrant communist workers became more frequently heard in the French memory field with the release of Mosco Boucault's documentary Des terroristes à la retraite (Retired Terrorists) in 1985. Misak Manoushian, who was first sent to an orphanage in Syria with his older brother after the Genocide and then moved to Marseille and then to Paris and settled in France, became a frequently mentioned figure in the French memory field from the 90s onwards.

This year, it was announced that the bodies of Missak Manouchian and Mélinée Manouchian will be buried at the Panthéon. In the announcement, Macron refers to Missak Manouchian as follows: "His unrivalled courage, his patriotic spirit that transcended all borders, his tranquil heroism expressed in his last letter to his wife Mélinée, in which he stated that he did not hate the German people, are a special source of inspiration for our Republic."6  

Macron's way of commemorating Manouchian [and his group], while it may sound nice at first, actually represents a particular political approach and situates Manouchian within the national narrative. In the letters written by Manouchian and his comrades, in the notes they left before they were killed, there is hardly any mention of France or the French Republic; most of them describe themselves with adjectives such as internationalist, communist, none of them are French citizens, and they express themselves with concepts such as peace, freedom, liberation.7

Macron's use of the term "tranquil heroism" for Manouchian is particularly striking because it is difficult to describe the partisans, who should be remembered for their sabotage and armed struggle against fascism, as tranquil. The philosopher Pierre Tevanian argues that to portray Manouchean posthumously as a part of the French national narrative and as someone who died for "love of France" is to distort his political legacy and historical experience. Moreover, this way of portrayal not only falsifies Manouchean's experience, but also, in a double move, defines France as the place Manouchean fell in love with. He describes France as if a very large part of it did not silently collaborate with German fascism, as if there was no systematic racism and xenophobia, and as if the anti-fascist resistance was not actually a handful.

Diluting, taming, absorbing the radical content of a revolutionary, partisan, militant or struggler after their death and making them a part of the official and national story is not unique to Macron's commemoration of Manouchian, but we can say that this approach is valid in almost all state commemorations. In particular, the political legacy of many figures who have become part of the "national pantheon" and whose memory has been nationalised by the state is coopted by diluting their radical content in a similar way.

For example, if we look at how the political legacy and memory of Martin Luther King has been interpreted after his official recognition and inclusion by the US, we see that elements of King's political position that emphasise the importance of class relations and poverty, the systemic nature and impact of racial capitalism, and the vital nature of self-organisation for the black community have been carefully erased. Thus King is remembered not as one of the leaders of the black radical movement, but as a moderate and rule-abiding democrat, although there are many other concepts that could be emphasised while commemorating Martin Luther King.8 

In Turkey, where Missak Manouchian was born and where the 1915 Armenian Assyrian Genocide took place, the official ideology still insists on the denial of the genocide. Considering that this rigid denial cannot be cracked to a great extent, that commemorations of the Armenian Genocide, which could be held on the streets 10 years ago, can now only be held inside institutions, and that even the most basic forms of democratic action are banned in Turkey, is it not a "luxury" to criticise France's commemoration of Manouchian? After all, isn't it positive that the political legacy and memory of a revolutionary is recognised by the state? These and similar questions can be increased; in my opinion, with a similar logic, all of these questions can also be asked about the urgency of Turkey's memory field. In a country where even the most basic rights are sometimes not exercised, is it meaningful to remember the commemorations of the Armenian Genocide based on Manouchian's transfer to the Panthéon?

Is it possible to make the recognition of the genocide an agenda at a time when there is a massive attack on the working class and it is becoming increasingly difficult to raise an organised voice against it? What is the benefit of insisting on commemorating the genocide in a geography where denial is so structural and strong, when street mobilisations are so dampened? I think that the deepening debate on how to remember Manouchian's anti-fascist, immigrant and internationalist political legacy and a political debate on the space opened up by genocide commemorations in Turkey and the political meanings of their absence today point to a similar place: What is the meaning of "democratic action", "street action" and "gestures of memory" in a moment where there is an increasingly right-wing centre, where "mainstreaming of the fascism and fascisation of the mainstrem "9, where Kurdish hostility, racism and xenophobia/immigrant hostility are constantly fuelled, where misogyny and hatred against LGBTI+ people are pumped, and where there is an all-out attack on all the gains of the working class? What is the use of a call for rights, law, equality and remembrance that is increasingly uninspiring next to the exciting and emotionally stirring voices of neo-fascisms?

In the research I conducted this year, I tried to find some clues to answer these questions. By reflecting on the accumulated experience of the Armenian Genocide commemorations in Turkey, I tried to analyse the different forms of the struggle for the recognition of the genocide took, the relationship of this struggle with other political movements in Turkey, and the political meanings of not being able to hold these commemorations today. While thinking about why I started this research, I realised that the research I was conducting was also an effort to remind myself. In Istanbul, in the not too distant past, genocide commemorations could be held on the streets.

Of course, the flow of political time is not the same as the flow of chronological time, and many studies looking at the commemorations rightly point out that that time was a period of different expectations in the axis of what we can roughly call "democratisation" in Turkey, the government's political programme emphasised other things, and the macro-level impact of the European Union harmonisation process. In my opinion, another factor that is at least as important as these is the fact that genocide commemorations can be organised at a time when many different political movements in Turkey are on the streets with a very wide repertoire, and street protests can be carried out with different political objectives.

The commemorations of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey, after the first years when the Armenian community organised the commemorations in Istanbul immediately after the genocide, started with different actions in Istanbul on 24 April since 2010, first with the pioneering struggle of the Human Rights Association, especially the IHD – Commission Against Racism and Discrimination, and then with the efforts of the Stop Racism and Nationalism Initiative.

The profile of the organisers of these commemorations can be defined in 3 different groups: Activists who commemorate the genocide by its name and by emphasising the concrete demands of recognition, reparation and coming to terms with the past, and who attach importance to the _expression_ of the political definition and demands, which I call "memory militants"; intellectuals from the left and liberal thought who argue that commemorations can be held without necessarily calling it genocide, by alluding to the concept and partially expressing what happened during the genocide process, and that this would be more inclusive; and moderate conservatives who frame genocide as a "common pain", who believe that this issue can only be discussed if the pain of all parties is emphasised, and who claim that the important thing is to make the issue talkable. Of course, there are many different aspects of these different commemoration approaches that can be discussed, but what draws my attention is the political danger posed by the approach of "the issue is not the commemoration of the genocide by name" in a geography where denial is so strong.

Commemorating the Armenian Assyrian Genocide by its name does not only indicate an intellectual and political attitude towards the genocide itself, but also reminds us that denial ensures the continuation of genocide, that the effects of genocide continue today and in the present, and that only through the widespread discussion and acceptance of certain demands for recognition, compensation and reparation can denial be broken.10   

On the other hand, I believe that the coexistence of these different forms of commemoration, despite all the debates, conflicting confrontations and sometimes frictions it harbours, opens up a very important intellectual and political space. I think that being eclectic in this field, which we call the field of memory, but in which different ways of processing the past are actually related to the political climate of today and the present, can open up some spaces.

A discourse analysis that looks at the language of the statements of the commemorations and the words they use is of course very meaningful, but it is also necessary to look at the total conflicted political accumulation created by all these commemorations, rethink the methods used and draw conclusions from this. For example, everyone I interviewed agreed that there was a significant intellectual and political accumulation on the genocide, but they were almost unanimous that the panels organised with the approach of "we sit a leftist, a Muslim, a liberal and a democrat at the table and discuss it" failed to create a radical change in the participants' own political circles. The younger generation of activists were more critical of their struggle and emphasised the importance of building alliances and ties with different political movements more enthusiastically.

Therefore, without giving up on forcing street commemorations, this period can also be used to abandon the forms of activity that are not working in the struggle for the recognition of the genocide and to establish new forms that work instead. We can think about which political movements, local initiatives and grassroots organisations we can establish relations with in order to crack the "post-genocidal habitus of denial"11, as Talin Suciyan puts it. One can work on the political possibilities opened up by the struggle for the recognition of the genocide through the recognition of the international nature of the Ottoman-Turkish working class in the past and present.

Throughout the 20th century it can be recalled that it was internationalists, immigrants, and stateless people who fought against fascism, pushed it back and ultimately defeated it. Instead of narratives that always centre on the survivors or those who were murdered12, studies can be conducted on how the mechanisms of denial work and how the structural pillars of denial function. Without instrumentalising the genocide, the struggle for the recognition of the genocide can be thought of not only as an act of "solidarity" with the minorities in Turkey, but also as being at the heart of a political programme on how to realise the perspective of "living together " in Turkey, and with which movements this programme can be formed in alliance.13

We are going through times when it is vital to build alliances given the fact that the representatives of organisations that make written statements about the genocide or commemorate the genocide in any way are being sued for insulting Turkishness. Norayr Olgar from the Nor Zartonk Initiative, which carries out very important work on how the genocide continues today and in the present, explains the importance of political remembrance very well in his article about Misak Manouchian: "Today, what remains of Manouchian and his comrades is more than just streets named after them, busts erected, books and songs written about them. What the 23 migrant partisans who came together left us is the hope of living together and the internationalist struggle. The courage and determination of Manouchian and his comrades will grow and live on in solidarity with the Kurdish people struggling against massacres from Gezi to Kamp Armen, in Lice, Nusayibin and Sur."14

I believe that we should not give up trying to think together about the "surplus" left to us by Manouchian and to deepen on it. As one of the activists I interviewed said, "We haven't said our last word yet" and I am almost certain that we will only find this word through a collective effort, by building alliances and expanding our existing alliances.

*Dr Özgür Sevgi Göral

Visiting Scholar at the University of Cambridge and researcher of the research project on Turkey-Armenia Relations organised by the Cambridge Interfaith Programme and funded by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation   

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

[1] On 18 June 1940, General Charles de Gaulle made his famous speech on BBC Radio in London, calling on the French people to resist. This is why today has become a day to commemorate the anti-Nazi resistance in France.
[2] France Inter, podcast recording, Missak Manouchian, au nom des autres, 25 February 2023, https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/podcasts/autant-en-emporte-l-histoire/autant-en-emporte-l-histoire-du-samedi-25-fevrier-2023-7362639
[3] Christian Stoffaes, Le rôle du Corps des Mines dans la politique industrielle française : deux siècles d'action et d'influence, Réalités Industrielles, November 2011, p. 57.
[4] Listen to the song at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nqyPVPDtcY
[5] It is actually accurate to describe the great massacre of 1915 as the Armenian Assyrian Genocide, I will use this term from time to time in this article to emphasise this politically, but I will mostly use the term Armenian Genocide as I am specifically analysing the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide on 24 April.
[6] For the  full statement published on 18 June 2023, see https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2023/06/18/ceremonie-du-18-juin-2023
[7] Pierre Tevanian, Manouchian n'est pas un héros de " roman national ", les mots sont importants, 18 June 2023 https://lmsi.net/Manouchian-n-est-pas-un-heros-de-roman-national 
[8] Andrew J. Douglas, Jared A. Loggins, Prophet of Discontent. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Critique of Racial Capitalism, University of Georgia Press, 2021
[9] Ugo Palheta, La Nouvelle Internationale Fasciste, Textuel, 2022.
[10] There are many studies evaluating genocide commemorations, it is not possible to mention them all in this article in an exhaustive manner, I will only point out three studies that I have used: Talin Suciyan, Toplumsal Anma Pratikleri Şekillenirken, Bölüm II: İstanbul 24 Nisan 2015 [While Social Remembrance Practices Take Shape, Part II: Istanbul 24 April 2015], Azad Alik, 21 June 2015, https://azadalik.com/2015/06/21/toplumsal-anma-pratikleri-sekillenirken-bolum-ii-istanbul-24-nisan-2015/; Egemen Özbek, Yeni bir Hatırlama Kültürü ve Ermeni Soykırımı Anmaları [A New Culture of Remembrance and Armenian Genocide Commemorations], Birikim, no. 392, December 202: 60 – 69; Adnan Çelik, Geçmeyen Bir Geçmişle Yüzleşmenin Zorlukları: Ermeni Soykırımı ve Kürt Müdahil Öznelliğinin Dönüşümü [The Difficulties of Confronting an Impermanent Past: The Armenian Genocide and the Transformation of Kurdish Interventionist Subjectivity], Birikim, no. 392, December 2022: 34 -52. Although this article I wrote in 2013 on the use of the term genocide is outdated in many respects, politically I think it is roughly close to this: Özgür Sevgi Göral, Ermeni Soykırımını Tanımak [Recognising the Armenian Genocide], Özgür Gündem, 25 April 2013, https://www.academia.edu/6604017/Ermeni_Soykırımını_Tanımak
[11] Talin Suciyan, Armenians in Modern Turkey: Post-Genocide Society, Politics and History, 2016.
[12] For nuanced critiques of these narratives, see Umut Tümay Arslan, Kesik’in Açtığı Yerden: Kat Kat Notlar [From the Place that Kesik'in Opens: Kat Kat Notlar], Altyazı, 27 March 2015 https://altyazi.net/yazilar/elestiriler/kesikin-actigi-yerden-kat-kat-notlar/, Nora Tataryan Aslan, Facing the Past. Aesthetic Possibility and the Image of "Super-Survivor", Journal of Middle East Women's Studies, 17:3, November 2021, 348 – 365.
[13] For an important article explaining the importance of the concept of "alliance" and why it should be used instead of "solidarity" in some cases, see Nazan Üstündağ, Dayanışmanın bazı sorunlarına dair [On some problems of solidarity], Yeni Özgür Politika, 12 April 2023, https://www.ozgurpolitika.com/haberi-dayanismanin-bazi-sorunlarina-dair-175436
[14] Norayr Olgar, Manuşyan, 23’ler ve Nazizme karşı mücadele [Manouchian, the 23s and the struggle against Nazism], Avlaremoz, 24 January 2016.

https://www.duvarenglish.com/president-erdogan-once-again-accuses-opposition-politicians-of-being-pro-lgbt-news-62609

Podcast | Police brutality in Armenia

Talar Tumanian
Opposition protester carried away by Armenian police. Photo via Ishkhan Saghatelyan's Facebook page.
OC Media staff writer Ani Avetisyan and Daniel Ioannisyan, the programmes director of the Union of Informed Citizens, talk about the latest cases of police brutality and violence in Armenia and the progress made to reform the police since the 2018 revolution.

Listen to the podcast at the link below: