Author: Virabian Jhanna

FIASCO OF FOOTBALL DIPLOMACY: OUR OPPOSITION AND NATIONAL INTERESTS
Elshad Iskenderov

news.az
April 28 2010
Azerbaijan

Elshad Iskenderov News.Az reprints from AzerTAc an article by Elshad
Iskenderov, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference
youth forum.

Under the international protocol, a person who represents an
international organization cannot go into the political discussions of
the member-states of this organization, including his own country. I
have been trying to adhere to this practice throughout the activity
in the OIC Youth Forum. Even considering the fact that the basis of
diplomatic services are changing in the globalizing world: from time to
time an official of a regional organization (usually, western one) goes
into an internal political discussion of any state (a newly independent
state, as a rule). Therefore, the opinion fixed below, even if it is a
personal opinion of the author is an exception of the rule. The reason
for such an exception has become an extremely incorrect and absolutely
unprincipled happiness of some national oppositionists caused by the
latest episode of the soap opera in the Armenian-Turkish normalization,
placed on the background of Washington’s decorations this time. Though
strange it may seem, but this joy turned out to be groundless with
the statement of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan who has, in fact,
signed under the failure both of the stage of the football diplomacy
and his mission in Washington. Let’s start from the beginning. First,
let’s see the reason for the joy. Due to Azerbaijan’s nonparticipation
in the Washington nuclear summit, some opposition circles who missed
such grounds have developed the following quasi thesis: "…the
Azerbaijani leadership accepts the losing Madrid principles, at the
same time Washington applies sanctions by not inviting us for the
summit, Turkey rescues us, while official Baku contends itself with
the role of an observer". "So, does Karabakh belong to Azerbaijan or
Turkey?", asks a politician who has also become a blogger by results
of an imagined script either affected by geographical amnesia or
striving to please someone.

But not only the thesis itself filled with illogical equilibristic is
ridiculous but the very ton of admiration about the "foreign policy
failure" (as interpreted by the author of the thesis) of the state and
the intention to please foreign supporters. For professional purposes
I often visit most OIC countries and meet wide specter of community,
including those who oppose the authorities, including the countries
where opposition complaints about the insufficient area of wards
rather than the absence of the office in the center of city.

These are the countries where the opposition leaders do not change
their sponsors with the frequency of Paris coquettes changing her
umbrellas. But the opposition claiming for becoming the national
political power does not demonstrate such a masochist ecstasy if there
is a threat to national interests, demonstrating full incompetence
in such concepts as "political dividends" and "vital interests of
the nation". Now, about logics, that is the alogism of the thesis.

Alogism 1. Azerbaijan has entrusted the conflict settlement to Turkey.

Yes, the summit held in Washington is primarily an integral part of
Washington’s policy for creating coalition against the Iranian nuclear
program. This is why, the leader of Turkey, a key regional player
and an important factor in the US strategy on Tehran’s international
isolation, was invited to Washington. Turkey’s position in the issue
of stiffening sanctions against Tehran is as known as Washington’s
intention to change this position. Any methods are applied here
including the use of the "Armenian map" as a means of pressure
on Ankara,

Alogism 2. Sargsyan’s participation in the summit is a foreign policy
success of Armenia.

Sargsyan was invited to Washington as a means of pressure on Turkey.

This is the real reason rather than the alleged acceptance of the
shooting of demonstration and political opponents characterizing the
current Yerevan regime by the United States as a proof of Armenia’s
democracy. Meanwhile, Sargsyan taking the advantage of all means to
legitimate his authorities allows using himself as such a subsidiary
means. His confession proves the success he has gained in Washington.

Armenia that has been attempting to sow a discord in the
Azerbaijani-Turkish relations by its ambiguous statements throughout
the whole process of "football diplomacy", has confessed on the highest
level that Turkey is not ready to continue the initiated process and
move without preconditions (read-without guarantees of Yerevan’s
prevention of aggressive policy). This confession along with the
freezing of the issue on recognition of genocide in the Congress is
a sad result of the Washington voyage of Sargsyan and the fiasco of
the Armenian policy (at least at the current stage) in the raising of
its geopolitical role and settlement of a vitally important issue of
opening of borders with Turkey without the resolution of the conflict
with Azerbaijan.

Alogism 3. Azerbaijan’s nonparticipation in the Washington summit
proves the weakness of our positions in the resolution process.

On the other hand, some in Washington consider sincerely and others
by interest that the Armenian-Turkish normalization without binding
to the Karabakh process is a complete welfare. Unfortunately, I have
to note that the firm opinion developed on the shores of Potomaka
is that if the socioeconomic sufferings of the Armenian people are
relieved and it lives better on the Turkish grub, the aggressive
component of Sargsyan’s regime will weaken, which will accelerate the
Karabakh conflict settlement. We should also not forget that Obama’s
administration has come to power thanks to the wide support of the
Armenian lobby. Without having an opportunity to keep the promise to
recognize the "Armenian genocide" in frames of the real policy, the
White House has to maneuver and make concessions to the Armenian side.

But whatever is concealed behind this position-this is an American, not
Azerbaijani position. Therefore, considering its national interests,
the Azerbaijani leadership protests any double standards.

Unlike oppositional , theorists, the United States understands this
well, like they understand the determination of the Azerbaijani
president to defend the national interests of their country and
like they understand (including by results of firm invitations of
the Azerbaijani president for the Istanbul summit of the last year)
and the fact that no protocol encouragement can change Ilham Aliyev’s
determination to defend these interests by any means.

The position of Azerbaijan’s president is as follows: the
aforementioned concept does not only contradict to the national
interests of the country: it is completely erroneous and dangerous for
prospects of stability in the region. In addition, our point of view
is based not only on the subjective experience of being familiar with
the Armenian perfidy from the first source but also on the historical
experience. No policy of calming down has ever prevented the ambitions
of any aggressor. The classical Munich plot which is featured in all US
textbooks on international relations is a bright evidence not speaking
of the latest history with the Saddam aggression against Kuwait. Any
man of sense cannot be happy when the principles of international
law are violated along with the demonstration of double standards. A
person who calls himself a patriot cannot be happy with the threat
for the national interests of his own country and with the pressure
on the strategic ally of his country. Even if such a pressure serves
the interests of the political tactics of your sponsor.

Thus, who does the Karabakh land belong to?

Prime Minister of fraternal Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
demonstrated firmness both in the issue of genocide and impossibility
of the further promotion of the normalization process without
Armenia’s demonstration of a good will in the Karabakh conflict. On
the first part everything is clear- it is impossible to accept the
historical memory imposed by the Armenian diaspora to Turkey with a
population of 70 million people. Principality in the Karabakh issue
is also not the result of the influence of the romantic Turkish soap
operas of the 80’s on the Turkish premier. Turkey conducts pragmatic
foreign policy in such a sensitive region as South Caucasus and the
firmness demonstrated in Washington is a result of the year of hard and
delicate work, patient contacts of the Azerbaijani leadership which has
strengthened Ankara’s position on the parallelism of the process of
the Armenian-Turkish normalization and the Karabakh settlement. This
have caused appeals from Erdogan to the Armenian side to follow the
spirit of the Zurich protocols which envision the Armenian-Turkish
normalization targeting the stabilization of the situation in the
South Caucasus and not turning into the tool of encouraging the
aggressor. Unfortunately, in this period, oppositionists who are
boasting about their contacts in Turkey, have not played any role
in this national work, contending themselves with cheap actions and
attempting to earn money on the difficulties of the sustained period.

Finally, the basic reason of the Turkish position was made public by
the Turkish premier in Washington: Azerbaijan is a strategic country
in the region and stability in the region is impossible without its
participation and observation of its interests. I think everyone has
guessed who has contributed to such an assessment to the growing role
of the country.

P.S. Sargsyan’s confessions have shown that the stage of "football
diplomacy" has ended. Armenia has started transition from to the chess
game with Turkey, like Armenian political scientist Kirakosian said.

This is a new stage for all players in the region and primarily for
Azerbaijan. There will be many chess steps in our direction and this
is not only for the players but also for the fans to define their
sympathies, because the national interests of the Azerbaijani people
that will define our future for the long-term are at stake rather
than the momentous political ambitions.

Elshad Iskenderov is a Secretary General of the OIC youth forum,
an international organization affiliated with the Organization of
Islamic Conference. He finished the graduate school of the US Columbian
University by the specialty of international relations. He has a rank
of ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of Azerbaijan.

HEADS OF DELEGATIONS OF AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA MET IN PACE

Trend
April 29 2010
Azerbaijan

During the framework of the PACE’s spring session on Wednesday there
was held a meeting between the heads of delegations of Armenia and
Azerbaijan with the participation of chairman of the organization
Mevlut Chavushoglu – the chairman of Azerbaijani delegation Samad
Seyidov said to journalists.

"We met with the head of the Armenian delegation, which was an exchange
of views. Discussion of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the Council of
Europe is very important. We decided to meet again in June.

Our work continues, and the format of the next meeting would be
expanded. It will be attended by the Representatives of the opposition,
members of the delegations of Azerbaijan and Armenia. I think this
is a great achievement and we will try to ensure that such meetings
with PACE president held each session. I note that in today’s meeting
was attended by the Chairman of the PACE Mevlut Chavushoglu, general
secretary of the Assembly Mathias Sorinas and other officials, "-
said Samad Seyidov.

ARRESTED POLICEMAN CHARGED WITH TORTURE
Ruzanna Stepanian

/2028393.html
29.04.2010

Armenia — Vahan Khalafian, a 24-year-old man who died in police
custody on 13 April 2010.

An Armenian police officer was charged on Thursday with torturing
a young man who died at the police station of the central town of
Charentsavan earlier this month.

The development announced by the Special Investigative Service
(SIS) is a massive blow to the credibility of police claims that
Vahan Khalafian was not ill-treated by his interrogators and simply
committed suicide in police custody.

In a written statement, the SIS said its investigators have found that
Ashot Harutiunian, one of two police officers arrested in the ongoing
inquiry, "used force" against Khalafian after the 24-year-old refused
to confess to a theft committed in Charentsavan. The law-enforcement
agency subordinated to Armenian prosecutors said the conclusion is
based on testimony given by several other local police officers who
were present at the April 13 interrogation.

According to a spokeswoman for Armenia’s Office of the
Prosecutor-General, the policemen reaffirmed it during a face-to-face
questioning with Harutiunian. "They insisted on their testimony,
saying that force was indeed used," Sona Truzian told RFE/RL’s
Armenian service.

"The head of the criminal investigations unit [at the Charentsavan
police] did use violence against Vahan Khalafian," Truzian said,
referring to Harutiunian. She said the latter was charged under a
Criminal Code article dealing with abuse of power which is "accompanied
by use of violence" and causes "severe consequences." The charge
carries between six and ten years’ imprisonment.

Harutiunian was arrested on Monday on suspicion of prodding Khalafian
to commit suicide. A corresponding accusation has been leveled against
one of his police subordinates who was placed under arrest last week.

Whether the SIS believes Khalafian died as a result of torture or,
as has been claimed by the Armenian police, stabbed himself to death
is not yet clear. Truzian said SIS investigators will answer this
question after the continuing forensic examinations of Khalafian’s
body. The SIS statement said the investigators have still not received
their final results.

Armenia — Police chief Alik Sargsian holds a news conference, 14 April
2010.Khalafian’s relatives say forensic medics detected at least two
stab wounds on his abdomen and numerous bruises in other parts of
his body during the first examination conducted on April 15. They
says this proves their view that the young man was tortured to death.

The police have categorically denied this so far. "I am officially
stating that there was not a single injury on his body," the chief
of the national police service, Alik Sargsian, assured journalists
on April 14.

"I want to make clear that there was no torture," Sargsian insisted,
speaking to RFE/RL’s Armenian service several days later. He claimed
that Khalafian confessed to the crime and that there was "simply no
point in subjecting him to torture."

The police on Thursday declined to react to the new embarrassing twist
in the SIS-led inquiry into an incident that has cast renewed spotlight
on their notorious interrogation techniques. A police spokesman told
RFE/RL that Sargsian will comment "in the coming days."

Local and international human rights groups, which believe that
police brutality is commonplace in Armenia, have expressed serious
concern about Khalafian’s death and urged the authorities to properly
investigate it. In an April 21 letter to Prosecutor-General Aghvan
Hovsepian, Human Rights Watch said such an inquiry would stem from
Armenia’s "international obligations."

"Armenian authorities have an obligation to provide a complete
and plausible explanation for and account of any death in custody,
based on a thorough and independent investigation which establishes
the extent of the liability of the authorities in whose custody the
deceased was when he died," the New York-based group said. "Failure
to carry out such an investigation and to pursue any appropriate
prosecutions of those responsible would bring Armenia in violation
of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights."

A similar statement was issued on Tuesday by the Paris-based
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and three Armenian
human rights groups. "This is not the first case of a person dying in
[Armenian] police custody," said the statement.

DEFENSE INDUSTRY TASKS OUTLINED

Yerkir
29.04.2010 14:21

Yerevan (Yerkir) – The issues on drafting of the defense industry
development concept and military-industrial complex as well as
assistance to military-industrial facilities were discussed at the
meeting of the interdepartmental commission, chaired by National
Security Council Secretary Arthur Baghdasaryan.

He stressed the necessity to intensify ties between military industrial
facilities in Armenia and post Soviet states, that will induce increase
of defense capacity and provide the Armenian Armed Forces with the
necessary equipment.

It was noted that Baghdasaryan’s visit to Russia and Belarus yielded
results, as the representatives of their defense establishments
arrived in Armenia and familiarized themselves with the situation at
the spot. Overall, the issues related to defense industry development
are in the limelight of the Armenian president, Baghdasaryan said.

The meeting made a decision on drafting and presenting the main
provisions of the Armenian defense establishment development concept
within three months.

THE TASK OF THE TRANSLATOR: ARMENIAN GOLGOTHA AND THE CONSPIRACY OF HISTORY
By Hovig Tchalian

Asbarez
Apr 29th, 2010

A film about the Armenian Genocide, Ravished Armenia, was recently
screened in Pasadena’s Armenian Center. The film, directed by Eric
Nazarian, is thought to be the first about the Genocide made in the
United States.

The film is in part a retelling of the Genocide memoir of Aurora
Mardiganian, published soon after she came to the United States in
1918. Interestingly, the film is also a partial reconstruction of
the book’s original film version, made in 1919 and now lost. As the
announcement of the film suggests, paraphrasing the book’s editor,
"it would seem that history conspired to destroy Ravished Armenia, the
only personal filmed record of what took place between 1915 and 1918."

Unlike other films based on books, therefore, this one has an unusually
complex history that includes reconstructions of both print and film
versions, in the larger context of Genocide reconstruction.

And yet, the process of making even this complex a film – about a film,
about a memoir, about historical events – relies fundamentally, like
all others, on the reconstitutive act of translation, across genres,
cultures and historical periods. The act of reconstituting the memoir
and the story it tells is susceptible to the historical "conspiracy"
mentioned in the film announcement, it seems, precisely because it
is grounded in translation.*

The complexity of translation can be better demonstrated, perhaps,
with a seemingly simpler example, the translation of a Genocide memoir
from Armenian into English. The example in this case is the April 2009
publication, into English, of Armenian Golgotha, the Armenian-language
memoir of a Genocide survivor, the priest Grigoris Balakian, translated
by his great-nephew, the poet, author and scholar, Peter Balakian.

The memoir is lengthy – the English edition extends to over 500 pages.

The process of translating it took the better part of ten years,
with several translators collaborating with its chief translator,
Peter Balakian, to complete it. Understandably, therefore, completing
a translation of this magnitude may encounter numerous difficulties
along the way, some mundane and others more profound. As the translator
suggests, for instance, there is the difficulty of his great uncle’s
early 20th-century Armenian to contend with (xxix). But even this
seemingly mundane issue of translation encompasses two distinct
aspects – the historical and the cultural. Grigoris Balakian’s
Armenian has to be translated across the decades and, only then,
cross the cultural and linguistic threshold from Armenian into English.

As the German-Jewish intellectual and critic Walter Benjamin suggests
in his essay "The Task of the Translator" about the German and French
versions of the word "pain," "In ‘Brof’ and ‘pain’ the intended object
is the same, but the mode of intention differs. It is because of their
modes of intention that the two words signify something different to a
German or a Frenchman, that they are not regarded as interchangeable,
and in fact ultimately seek to exclude one another." (Benjamin’s choice
of words, "pain," is not without irony here. As a Jew, he fled Nazi
persecution, only to commit suicide in 1940, on the brink of capture
on the Spanish border.) In this early statement in Benjamin’s essay,
the separation of the German and French languages embedded as a fissure
in the notion of pain itself, rent as it is between two different
"modes of intention," suggests a fundamental obstacle to overcome,
a determining mechanism of translation.

Since English is the modern lingua franca, translating words into
English places the translator at the cross-roads of many more than
two languages and cultures. In Armenian Golgotha, for instance,
place names act as a potentially divisive obstacle. While Peter
Balakian’s co-translator, Aris Sevag, only mentions them briefly, he
nevertheless hints that making the memoir accessible to the widest
possible readership entailed the apparently unthinkable, replacing
Armenian place names with their Turkish ones, which have, ironically,
gained much wider currency (xliii).

The act of translating a historical memoir such as Armenian Golgotha,
therefore, is fundamentally wedded to history. As Benjamin is acutely
aware, times change, and with them historically derived uses and
conventions: "For in its continuing life, which could not be so called
if it were not the transformation and renewal of a living thing, the
original is changed. Established words also have their after-ripening.

… What once sounded fresh may come to sound stale, and what once
sounded idiomatic may later sound archaic." The writer of the memoir
himself is caught in this historical flux. As Peter Balakian admits,
his great-uncle is susceptible to the conventions and faults of
his age: "sometimes he essentializes Turks in a racialist way
characteristic of the period" (xviii).

These at times more mundane considerations become, in Benjamin’s
rendering, characteristic of the separation of languages and,
through the attempt at uniting them, part of a larger struggle that
yokes history and language: "If the kinship of languages manifests
itself in translation, it does so otherwise than through the vague
similarity of original and copy. For it is clear that kinship does
not necessarily involve similarity. … Wherein can the kinship of
two languages be sought, apart from a historical kinship?"

It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that the roles of historical
witness and originary writer are difficult to disentangle, even at
the memoir’s inception. In this regard, the struggle of translating
Armenian Golgotha ninety years after the fact first manifests itself in
the act of writing the memoir, itself caught in the mesh of history. In
his Author’s Preface, Grigoris Balakian clearly expresses his feelings
of inadequacy and uneasiness at depicting the events of 1915. In fact,
he presents himself as a historian of sorts, one desperately needed by
the rapidly dwindling Armenian nation: "Although you had many writers,
poets, novelists, playwrights, and especially journalists and editors,
you never had a historian" (456).

The feeling of deep ambivalence that the act of committing his
observations to print precipitates for Grigoris Balakian has its source
in the historical events he is witnessing. The writer sounds as unsure
about the prospects of doing justice to what he sees as he is adamant
about his need to make the attempt: "I myself felt both weak at heart
and of pen, to write about the great annihilation that surpasses even
the bloodiest pages of human history" (454). But as his confession
suggests, this unambiguous profession of personal inadequacy primarily
reflects the "surpassing" magnitude of the events he sees unfolding
before him. Balakian makes this aspect of the telling explicit only
two pages later in the same preface: "Never doubt my story of the
great crime, and never think that what has been written herein has
been in any way exaggerated. On the contrary, I have written the bare
minimum, because it is not humanly possible to describe the horrific
and ineffable martyrdom of over one million dead sons and daughters"
(454).

As the author puts it, it is his gargantuan task of making "a critical
analysis of your [i.e., Armenia’s] real inner life hidden behind the
curtain" (456), what he calls a page later "veiled secret moments,"
that causes him considerable anxiety: "as you had no historian, it
was a thankless task to truthfully write this chapter of contemporary
Armenian history with its veiled secret moments and, in so doing,
to become everyone’s enemy" (457). Balakian’s "thankless task"
encompasses not only witnessing the genocidal events but having to
relive them in the retelling, coupled with the awesome burden of
conveying them to posterity, whole and intact.

Balakian’s attempt to reveal the "secrets" hidden behind the
historical curtain bears an uncanny resemblance to Benjamin’s
description of the translator’s encounter with a similar "secret,"
the truth or "message" lodged in the language of the poet he seeks
to translate: "But what then is there in a poem – and even bad
translators concede this to be essential – besides a message? Isn’t
it generally acknowledged to be the incomprehensible, the secret, the
"poetic"? That which the translator can render only insofar as he –
also writes poetry?" The truth of the original memoir that Peter
Balakian, or any other translator, is concerned about ‘capturing’
corresponds in this particular memoir of Genocidal atrocities to
what Grigoris Balakian refers to as the "ineffable martyrdom" of
the victims, both in turn reflecting what Benjamin locates in the
hard, intractable "kernel" that resists any attempt to translate it,
through language and across history: "[translation] nevertheless at
least points, with wonderful penetration, toward the predetermined,
inaccessible domain where languages are reconciled and fulfilled. The
original does not attain this domain in every respect, but in it lies
that which, in a translation, is more than a message. This essential
kernel can be more precisely defined as what is not retranslatable
[sic] in a translation."

But as we saw in Grigoris Balakian’s own confession, while the
translator’s task is critical, it ultimately leads away from him and
toward what the writer calls the "thankless" task act of recomposition,
of historical translation. The memoirist is a historian, because
both translate. They are linked in their attempt at being true to
the original, by what we might call their equally uneasy relationship
to history – the translator’s to the memoir and the memoir’s to its
own witness.

As such, the memoirist’s attempt at rendering the ineffable transcends
any subsequently simple attempt at fidelity on the translator’s part.

As Benjamin succinctly defines it, the "distinguishing mark of bad
translation" is the "inexact transmission of an inessential content."

The act of truthfully translating "content" takes the translator far
beyond a simple attempt at fidelity, the narrow effort of being true
to the original. It confronts him instead with the far more daunting
task of capturing its essence, of representing the ‘whole’ truth.

Benjamin mentions the ideal translator’s role as a poet for a reason –
not primarily because it makes him a better wordsmith but because it
implies that he has what we might call, for lack of a better term,
the ‘sensibility’ of a poet. As Peter Balakian reminds us in his own
preface, he is both a poet and a translator. But Benjamin’s rendering
of the act of translation, as well as the circumstances of Grigoris
Balakian’s memoir, suggest that we should see the reminder as a
fundamentally historical act – not a mention of the translator’s
appropriate skills or abilities so much as a summoning of his
correspondingly appropriate identity for taking on his task.

Benjamin’s emphasis on this correspondence that transcends fidelity
points to the central question surrounding any witness account – its
value, beyond those of similar ones, in reinstating an otherwise dim
historical reality. There are, after all, countless other observer
accounts, including perhaps the best known, that of the Henry
Morgenthau, Jr., the American Ambassador to Turkey at the time. What
seems to distinguish Grigoris Balakian’s account is its status as
memoir. As both eyewitness and survivor of the atrocities, Balakian is
at once an ‘outsider’ and an ‘insider.’ Armenian Golgotha, therefore,
bears a unique relationship to the events it describes, one available
to only a small handful of eyewitness accounts. As Peter Balakian
suggests, "many readers will find that Armenian Golgotha, because of
its intimacy with Turkish culture and the Anatolian landscape, will
be another important text that tells the story of the eradication
of the Armenians from inside Turkey and reveals Turkish denial as a
continued assault on truth" (xx). Peter Balakian is referring in part
to the physical, literal landscape, the wilderness of Anatolia into
which Grigoris Balakian escaped and in which he survived for four long
years. But beyond that, the words evoke the larger milieu of Anatolian
culture, politics and history that the memoir evokes. It is entirely
fitting, therefore, that such a memoir is situated at the crossroads
between two cultures, embedded as it is in the Anatolian landscape,
"intimate" with Turkish as well as Armenian history and culture,
its status as the ultimate witness against denial in part a result
of straddling the threshold between them.

But can we, as a result, conjecture that the memoir’s intimacy
with its environment captures the writer’s deep understanding of
the victims’ plight better than, say, Morgenthau’s? While there is
ample reason to do so, claiming the memoirist’s status as an insider
also presents a difficult conundrum – the fact itself shields others
(i.e., non-Armenians) from the truth. Keeping in mind Benjamin’s
rendering of the translator’s complex and multi-layered task, it
is worth considering that our own historical distance from events
of the past is no more preferable to, say, Morgenthau’s linguistic
or cultural distance from the victims themselves. It is here that
Benjamin’s characterization of the translator’s task is especially
pertinent. By recognizing the inherent complexities of translation,
he also hints at their ultimate resolution: "Just as fragments of
a vessel, in order to be fitted together, must correspond to each
other in the tiniest details but need not resemble each other, so
translation, instead of making itself resemble the meaning of the
original, must lovingly, and in detail, fashion in its own language
a counterpart to the original’s mode of intention, in order to make
both of them recognizable as fragments of a vessel, as fragments
of a greater language." Armenian Golgotha is a perfect instance of
Benjamin’s fragment, its correspondence with the Anatolian context
suggesting their embedding in a "greater language."

But while Benjamin’s prophetic language places the reconstitution
of the primordial "vessel" in a supra-historical, messianic future,
the task of both Balakians is nonetheless resolutely historical. Peter
Balakian’s reference to Raphael Lemkin, the Polish Jewish legal scholar
who coined the term "genocide" in 1943, is telling in this regard:
"While it is likely that Lemkin never read Armenian Golgotha because of
the obstacle of translation, he had accrued a depth of understanding
of the events of 1915 such that his own knowledge of the Armenian
Genocide is vividly borne out by and embodied in Balakian’s memoir"
(xx). Balakian singles out "translation" as the primary "obstacle"
facing Lemkin but one that never prevented him from "understanding"
the victims’ plight. While separated from the events of the Genocide by
both historical and linguistic distance, Lemkin is able to ‘translate’
the events depicted in Armenian Golgotha – the memoir’s Benjaminian
"secret" or "kernel" – across the cultural-historical threshold by
fashioning the same deep, visceral, understanding that the memoir
"embodies." In other words, as a reader, Lemkin displays the kind of
identity, the sensibility, required of the ideal translator.

Such an act of rewriting is, of course, also fraught with a kind of
ambiguity at least as complex as the writer’s own. That ambiguity
represents in part, as we saw earlier, the uneasy moment of Grigoris
Balakian’s originary act. But it is also the subsequent act of
rewriting, of translating, the memoir across the cultural-historical
divide that opens up the possibility of denial, which purports to be
simply another, or different, re-writing, like the conflicting account
in a historical trial, presented, in Peter Balakian’s evocative
phrasing, by a "testifier" (xxiii). Grigoris Balakian mentions,
for instance, an early and more localized rewriting of history, a
disturbingly subtle form of denial: German soldiers Grigoris Balakian
meets speak of Armenians as money-hungry "Christian Jews," conflating
Turkish rhetoric with German stereotypes, reinterpreting history at the
very moment of its making (xviii). In moments such as these, what the
sponsors of Ravished Armenia justifiably characterize as the anonymous
"conspiracy" of history becomes a deliberate vehicle of betrayal.

As Walter Benjamin suggests, the attempt at reconstitution both
enables and complicates the task of the translator. It is here that
the burden – better, the responsibility – of translation takes on a
deeply historical character. The publication of Armenian Golgotha in
English brings to light the complex kernel, the "hidden secret," at the
center of Grigoris Balakian’s memoir. Its publication a year before
the screening of Ravished Armenia, a film based on a lost original,
also reminds us that, while no act of translation is immune to the
conspiracy of history, it is also far from irrevocably subject to
the betrayal of its agents.

*The Latin root of translation, translatio, means to "carry across."

All Rights Reserved: Critics’ Forum, 2010.

Hovig Tchalian holds a PhD in English literature from UCLA.  He has
edited several journals and also published articles of his own.

You can reach him or any of the other contributors to Critics’ Forum
at [email protected]. This and all other articles published
in this series are available online at ; To
sign up for a weekly electronic version of new articles, go to
; Critics’ Forum is a group created to
discuss issues relating to Armenian art and culture in the Diaspora

"ARMENIA NOT TO SPEAK OUT ON MADRID PRINCIPLES UNTIL IT GETS THE SIGNAL"

Today
ics/66889.html
April 28 2010
Azerbaijan

"The prolonged silence of Yerevan in connection with its position on
updated version of the Madrid principles is really easily explainable",
said Azerbaijani MP Gulyar Akhmedova.

"Everyone knows that the Republic of Armenia is not capable of
completely independent decision-making. And until its given a signal
from its patron, there will be no clear reaction on Madrid principles
on Armenia’s part", Akhmedova said.

"Moreover, Armenia right now is trying to bargain. To bargain with
Azerbaijan as much as possible. Question of Nagorno-Karabakh is
just a bargainig chip. They are not concerned about homeless people,
be it armenians or azerbaijanis", the MP said.

The MP also believes, that this process is not likely to end in a
good way for Armenia.

"No international force, including the OSCE MG could not achieve
anything, and did not pressure Armenia. Has anyone succeeded here
before?", asked the MP.

ISRAELI PARLIAMENT SET TO DISCUSS GENOCIDE OF ARMENIANS

Aysor
April 28 2010
Armenia

The package on recognition of the 1915 Genocide of Armenians will
possibly be included on agenda of the Israeli Parliament.

Artak Grigorian, a scientist and expert, said that the issue was
among the highlights of the Israeli Parliament in 2007-2009, however,
was never discussed.

"Due to some reasons Israel won’t recognize the Genocide of Armenians
yet; so one shouldn’t expect anything in this relation. The discussions
on the issue will not be included on agenda and will be set down till
next year," he said.

Artak Grigorian added that there are Israeli lawmakers who support
the Armenian position over the issue; however, they are unable to
influence the situation. "Israeli policy is never being guarded by
sympathies, but only national interests," analyst said.

TURKEY TO RAISE KARABAKH ISSUE WITH RUSSIAN PRESIDENT

news.az
April 27 2010
Azerbaijan

Ahmet Davutoglu Nagorno-Karabakh will be one of the main issues on
the agenda of the Russian president’s visit to Ankara, the Turkish
foreign minister has said.

‘Dmitry Medvedev is expected to visit in the near future. The problem
with the Azerbaijani territories will be one of the main issues. We
consider that topic as our own and always keep it on the agenda. From
now on, Turkey and Azerbaijan will coordinate their steps. No
development can affect the relationship between Turkey and Azerbaijan.

Everybody should bear this in mind,’ Davutoglu told the Turkish
parliament yesterday.

‘Relations between Armenia and Turkey will normalize. We do want it,’
the minister said, referring to rapprochement between Armenia and
Turkey. He expressed hope that the conflict between Azerbaijan and
Nagorno-Karabakh would also be resolved.

Davutoglu said that the ‘Turks and Armenians have co-existed for
centuries. Wherever in the world they meet, they should learn to
share not only each other’s pain, but also each other’s history’.

‘They have lived together and will do so in the future,’ he said,
adding that Turkey did not want the status quo to be preserved in
the Caucasus.

‘We are interested in whatever happens in Armenia, Georgia,
Azerbaijan. Any approach by Russia and Iran towards the Caucasus is
directly related to us. For that reason we do not want this status
quo in the Caucasus. The status quo in the Caucasus is beneficial
neither for Turkey, nor for Armenia, nor for any other country,’
Davutoglu said.

‘Turkey-Armenia relations will become normalized,’ he said. ‘In
parallel, the occupation of Azerbaijani land will end and the dispute
between Azerbaijan and Armenia will be resolved. The border between
Azerbaijan and Armenia will open. It means a corridor from Erzurum
(a province in the east of Turkey) will open throughout Central Asia,’
he said.

TURKEY ACCORD ABROGATION ‘STILL AN OPTION’ FOR ARMENIA
Ruzanna Stepanian

Armenialiberty.org
April 27 2010

President Serzh Sarkisian held out hope for Armenian electricity
exports to Turkey on Tuesday just as one of his top diplomats
warned that Yerevan may still formally rescind the Turkish-Armenian
normalization agreements.

Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, meanwhile, brushed aside continuing
domestic criticism of the Sarkisian administration’s policy on Turkey
and accused Armenia’s previous leadership of committing foreign policy
"mistakes."

Sarkisian touched, in passing, upon his decision to freeze Armenian
parliamentary ratification of the agreements as he chaired a regular
meeting of his advisory Council on Atomic Energy Safety. He said
the opening of the Turkish-Armenian frontier, which he described as
"Europe’s last closed border," would give a massive boost to energy
cooperation in the region.

"Despite the fact that the process has been suspended because of
the Turkish government’s inactivity, we see a potential to export
electricity to Turkey and, by transit, on to countries of the Middle
East," the president said. He did not specify whether he thinks
Armenian power supplies could start before the Turkish-Armenian
protocols are put into effect.

An agreement on such deliveries was reportedly reached by Armenian
and Turkish energy companies during Turkish President Abdullah
Gul’s historic visit to Yerevan in September 2008. Energy Minister
Armen Movsisian and other Armenian officials repeatedly said in the
following months that power grids in eastern Turkey are gearing up
electricity supplies from Armenia.

Movsisian said in October last year that the energy deal has not been
implemented because of "political problems in Turkey." The effective
freezing of the Turkish-Armenian protocols announced by Sarkisian on
April 22 seems to have made the launch of energy cooperation between
the two neighboring states even more problematic.

Speaking to RFE/RL’s Armenian service after the meeting of the
presidential council, Deputy Foreign Minister Arman Kirakosian
defended Sarkisian’s decision not to walk away from the protocols
despite Ankara’s refusal to unconditionally ratify them.

"Let us not forget that we too have an option to withdraw our
signatures [from the protocols,]" Kirakosian said. "That is a variant.

Depending on further developments in the process, we may use that
variant."

The diplomat added that such a scenario will be "definitely possible"
if the normalization process remains deadlocked. But he could not
say just how long Yerevan is ready to wait.

"If there are credible statements and actions by the Turkish
leadership, there will be adequate steps on our part," Nalbandian
told Armenian Public Television late on Monday. "But I see no need
whatsoever to start new negotiations [with Ankara.]"

Nalbandian also hit out at domestic critics of the Sarkisian
administration’s policy on Turkey. He said recent resolutions
approved by U.S. and Swedish lawmakers disproved their claims that
the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement will halt broader international
recognition of the Armenian genocide.

And in an apparent jibe at former President Robert Kocharian,
Nalbandian said: "You know, when it comes to ensuring the continuity
of foreign policy, that doesn’t mean we should continue mistakes. We
must not repeat mistakes, and it is this logic that led the president
of the republic to start this process." He did not elaborate.

Earlier on Monday, a key member of the Kocharian administration,
former Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian, renewed his strong criticism
of the protocols and said Sarkisian has opted for the worst possible
response to the Turkish delay tactic. "If there were half a dozen
possible exit strategies from this situation – from doing nothing to
revoking Armenia’s signature – the government has chosen the option
least beneficial to us," Oskanian said in a statement.

Kirakosian, who served as deputy foreign minister also under Oskanian,
disagreed with the claim, arguing that Sarkisian’s move has been
praised by the United States and other foreign powers. "I think it
was the right decision," he said. "Right now we are waiting to see
what developments will occur in Turkey in relation to the ratification
process."

FIDH CALLS FOR TRANSPARENT INVESTIGAION ON VAHAN KHALAFYAN’S DEATH

Tert.am
19:18 27.04.10

On April 27, 2010, the International Federation for Human Rights
(FIDH), its member organization the Civil Society Institute (CSI), the
Armenian Helsinki Committee and the Foundation against the Violation
of Law released a statement condemning the death of Vahan Khalafyan
at the Charentsavan Police Department on April 13, 2010.

The statement reads as follows:

"On April 13, 24-year-old Vahan Khalafyan was taken to the Charentsavan
Police Department along with three other young me suspected of stealing
clothes worth 1.5 million AMD earlier this month. According to the
announcement of the Head of the Police Alik Sargsyan made on April 14,
they were taken to the police department at 4:50 pm. Vahan Khalafyan’s
mother claimed on April 19 that her son had been taken to the police
around 10:30 am without any prior notice about it.

"At around 5:00 pm, Vahan Khalafyan was reported to have died at the
Charentsavan Police Department as a result of stab wounds. The Police
announced on April 14 that he had committed suicide.

"A criminal case was launched on April 13, 2010 by the Kotayk province
Investigation Department according to Part 1 of Article 110 (causing
somebody to commit suicide) of the Criminal Code of the Republic
of Armenia. On April 23, 2010, Moris Hayrapetyan, Officer of the
Criminal Investigation Department was charged with this article as
well as with Article 309 of the Criminal Code (speculating on one’s
official duties) and was taken to pre-trial detention.

"FIDH, CSI, the Armenian Helsinki Committee and the Foundation against
the Violation of Law express their deep concern about the death of
Vahan Khalafyan. The State should investigate the exact circumstances
of this death and bring those responsible to justice.

"This is not the first case of a citizen dying at police department
in Armenia. As previously reported by FIDH and CSI, on May 12, 2008
Levon Gulyan who had been summoned to the police station as a witness
died in the Police Headquarters of the Republic of Armenia and until
now no one has been found responsible for his death.

Moreover, on February 5, 2010, the Criminal Court of Appeal rejected
the appeal of his legal successors against the decision of the Court
of First Instance to close the case.

"Our organizations are deeply concerned by the seemingly pervasive
culture of impunity for crimes committed by or under the responsibility
of law enforcement bodies in Armenia.

"FIDH, CSI, the Armenian Helsinki Committee and the Foundation against
the Violation of Law call the Armenian authorities:

~U To conduct an immediate and efficient investigation on Vahan
Khalafyan’s death

~U To ensure that the perpetrators be brought to trial before
a competent, independent and impartial court in accordance with
national criminal law and in strict respect of international human
rights principles and standards

~U To investigate impartially the responsibility of the high ranking
officials who fail to prevent the repetition of such cases which
therefore contributes to the culture of impunity.

~U To fully conform with the provisions of the European Convention on
the Prevention of Torture and the UN Convention against Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ratified
by the Republic of Armenia, which clearly imposes to a State an
obligation to investigate and prosecute allegations of torture and
inhuman treatment.