President Ersin Tatar issued a message regarding the catastrophic flood in Pakistan which has caused significant loss of life and destruction to properties:
I am deeply shocked and saddened to learn about the significant loss of life and destruction caused by the catastrophic flood in Pakistan.
I hope for there not to be any more loss of life and I wish for a speedy recovery to those who have been affected by the flood. May there be no more such disasters in the world.
May God bestow mercy on those who lost their lives as a result of this catastrophy.
I extend my most sincere condolences and sympathies to the brotherly people of Pakistan and President Dr. Arif Alvi in my own name and on behalf of the Turkish Cypriot People.
Our thoughts and prayers are with you during this most difficult period.”
Vahakn Dadrian, the preeminent expert on the Armenian Genocide, died in upstate New York on August 2, 2019, at the age of 93. Born in Istanbul, Turkey, he devoted his entire life to expose the Turkish denials of the Armenian Genocide. Dadrian conducted his meticulous research in Turkish, English, French, German and Armenian, publishing dozens of scholarly books and articles in professional journals.
One would think that a distinguished individual such as Dadrian would be respected, not only during his lifetime, but also after his passing. Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan took the right step by issuing a decision on August 19, 2019, to appoint a high-level State Commission to make the necessary arrangements for Dadrian’s burial in Yerevan and allocated an appropriate budget for the funeral expenses.
The members of the State Commission were: “A. Harutyunyan, Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sports; Z. Mnatsakanian, Foreign Minister; A. Torosyan, Minister of Health; A. Janjughazyan, Minister of Finance; H. Marutyan, Mayor of Yerevan; R. Martirosyan, President of National Academy of Sciences; V. Terteryan, Deputy Minister of Territorial Management and Infrastructure; V. Movsisyan, Deputy Police Chief of Armenia; Bishop Hovnan Hakobyan, Grand Sacristan of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin; A. Iskankaryan, Director of the Special Services for the Population; H. Marutyan, Director of the Armenian Genocide Museum; and G. Sarkissian, President of the Zoryan Institute (Canada).” Dadrian was the Director of Genocide Research at Zoryan.
After the Embassy of Armenia in the United States transferred Prof. Dadrian’s ashes to Armenia, a Memorial Service was held on August 31, 2019, at the National Academy of Sciences, where Dadrian was a member. The Service was attended by the State Commission members, as well as Ararat Mirzoyan, then Speaker of the Parliament, Dadrian’s 90-year-old sister, and other dignitaries and academicians. Prof. Dadrian’s ashes were interred at the Tokhmakh Cemetery in Yerevan.
Recently, when Maggie Mangassarian Goschin, Director of the Ararat-Eskijian Museum in Mission Hills, California, wanted to include a photo of Dadrian’s grave in her museum where Dadrian’s archives are stored, no one could locate Dadrian’s grave. After a lengthy search, Baghdig Kouyoumdjian of Paris and Hrair Hawk Khatcherian of Canada finally found Dadrian’s unmarked grave. It turned out that after three years of his burial, the State Commission did not have the courtesy of placing on Dadrian’s grave a tombstone or even a plaque indicating his name. The grave was shockingly covered with weeds and garbage. The two gentlemen placed a temporary plaque on Dadrian’s grave and cleared the weeds. This is the horrible treatment that this eminent scholar received in his homeland after his death.
Prof. Taner Akcam, a well-known scholar of the Armenian Genocide and Director of UCLA’s Armenian Genocide Research Program, was the first to sound the alarm on his Facebook page about the deplorable neglect of Dadrian’s grave. It is ironic that an individual of Turkish origin is more concerned about the despicable treatment of Dadrian’s grave than the Armenian government. Dadrian was Akcam’s mentor and collaborator on Genocide research. Akcam wrote on his Facebook page: “Dadrian does not deserve this. It is unacceptable and an immense shame that the grave of the founder of modern Armenian Genocide research is neglected and forgotten.”
In response to Prof. Akcam’s justified outrage, Mari Hovhannisyan, Program Coordinator of the Zoryan Institute (Armenia), issued a statement titled, “Tempest in a teacup.” She gave the excuse that the delay was “due to COVID-19 and the 2020 Artsakh War, Armenia was burying several thousand of its brightest sons and daughters, tragically lost due to both of these crises, each requiring their own appropriate tombstones.” This is an unacceptable excuse. Dadrian was buried seven months before COVID-19 affected Armenia and more than a year before the Artsakh War. That’s plenty of time to place a tombstone or at least a plaque on Dadrian’s grave, not to mention that almost two years have passed since the 2020 war and COVID-19 is no longer prevalent in Armenia. Furthermore, since Dadrian’s death, other individuals have been buried in nearby graves and they have a tombstone!
More troubling are the attempts to cover up this scandal. Zoryan’s Hovhannisyan wrote on her Facebook page: “We kindly request those who have raised this issue publicly to refrain from spreading unchecked information and making unnecessary comments, which can only lead to tempest in the teacup.” Vahan Hunanyan, spokesperson of the Armenian Foreign Ministry, and Harutyun Marutyan, Director of the Armenian Genocide Museum in Yerevan, issued similar meaningless excuses. This is the usual behavior of those who want to cover up their embarrassing mistakes. It would have been more appropriate to issue an apology and take immediate steps to place a tombstone on Dadrian’s grave.
If the State Commission members, appointed by Prime Minister Pashinyan, could not arrange to place a tombstone on the grave of a highly-respected Armenian scholar in three years, they should have been reprimanded by Pashinyan for their negligence and incompetence. This is a national scandal. It is also a regrettable indication that if Armenian officials cannot place a tombstone on a grave, how can Armenians trust their government to run a country with so many serious problems?
Finally, Prof. Dadrian’s grave should not have been placed in the Tokhmakh Cemetery. It would have been more appropriate to place the urn of Dadrian’s ashes at the Memorial Wall next to the Genocide Monument or the Komitas Pantheon, alongside other prominent individuals. That is the least the Armenian government could do to rectify its grave error.
Without being embarrassed or bored, the Greek Cypriots continue the diplomatic games and lies of Byzantium, of which they are a relic.
The official statement issued by the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus (Greek Cypriot Administration) in 1974 regarding Turkey’s “Peace Operation” that brought permanent peace to the island is based on completely false and biased justifications. Their goal is to justify themselves by concealing the truth from the rest of the world.
Saying that the facts are not what they appear to be, that history cannot be falsified, let us emphasize once more: Turkey did not invade the island in 1974; it came to save the wholly occupied island.
After months of planning, Greece’s ruling Junta of Colonels launched a military coup on July 15, 1974, to depose the then-President of the Republic of Cyprus, Makarios, and to dissolve the Republic of Cyprus and replace it with the “Hellenic Republic of Cyprus.”
Following the success of the military coup, the final step was to annex Cyprus to Greece and implement Article 8 of the “Megali Idea.”
After two days of internal conflict, the “military coup” that began on July 15th was successful. At the time, Makarios, the President of the Republic of Cyprus, was forced to flee his palace in Nicosia.
Makarios supporters were massacred and imprisoned by EOKA B militias. Known and well-known Makarios supporters, such as “Tassos Papadopoulos,” who would become President of the Greek Cypriot Administration about 30 years after the coup, were imprisoned in the RMMO camp in Famagusta, which now houses the “Gülseren Training Battalion.” They also slaughtered AKEL supporters, a left-wing political party. Many Greeks, who are still mourning their loss, have been brutally executed by the EOKA B’ists simply because they are leftists.
The Junta of Colonels in Greece proclaimed EOKA hitman Nikos Sampson President on the afternoon of July 15, 1974, before the coup d’état organized by the Junta of Colonels in Greece had yet to succeed. Nikos Sampson, who appeared on the CRBC (Cyprus Radio Broadcasting Corporation) television broadcast, which was not available on any other TV channel at the time, made a speech informing about the coup and finally announced that Makarios had been killed and declared the “REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS HELEN.” Nikos Sampson’s speech, mannerisms, gestures, voice, and proud and rowdy demeanor that day remain vivid in my memory.
On the morning of July 16, I listened to the deposed President Makarios’ people, who began with a tearful voice saying, “Ime Makarios” – I am Makarios. The weeping voice of Makarios, who sees himself as the future President of Greece, surprised me.
Nikos Sampson was unable to form a ten-member Council of Ministers three days after being appointed President. He was able to find five people, but none of the remaining five ministries were accepted. He announced on the radio a few days later that he was annexing the “Hellenic Republic of Cyprus” to Greece.
Although all of these events, which began with a coup in Cyprus on July 15, are written historical facts, Greek Cypriots have always based their propaganda on the day on July 20, when Turkish troops arrived on the island. They never mention the July 15 coup or the genocide they committed against Turks between December 21, 1963 and July 20, 1974, because it did not suit them.
Makarios, who fled the island with a bloody coup supported by the Greek Junta, revealed the facts with full clarity in his speech to the United Nations Security Council on July 19, 1974, and said, “Greece has invaded our island.” (Video URL:
If Turkey had not intervened in accordance with international law on July 20, 1974, the island of Cyprus would have become Greek territory today, leaving only a few hundred Turkish Cypriots who were allowed to live in Cyprus for propaganda purposes. Most importantly, the United States and the European Union would not speak out against Greece’s annexation of Cyprus. July 15, 1974 was to be declared the “Day of Victory” in Hellenic history, to be celebrated every year with great zeal and in a manner that would impress the Turks.
While the facts are as stated, we owe it to ourselves to tell and spread the truths that the Greeks keep hidden even from their own youth. Even Makarios’ UN speech emphasizes the importance of Turkey’s presence on the island.
Prof. Dr. (Civ. Eng), Assoc. Prof. Dr. (Int. Rel.) Ata Atun
Dean, Cyprus Science University
Politicial Advisor to the President of the TRN Cyprus
Azerbaijan’s order to evacuate around 150 families from three Armenian villages in the Lachin Corridor, which connects Armenia to Artsakh, has alarmed Armenians worldwide.
As a result of Azerbaijan’s ultimatum, Armenians in the villages of Bertzor, Aghavno and Sus are obliged to move elsewhere in Artsakh or Armenia. After losing a devastating war in 2020, Armenia and Artsakh, both suffering from poor leadership, are demanding that the villagers comply with Azerbaijan’s demand to leave their homes and churches by the deadline of August 25.
The source of the problem is the joint “statement” of November 10, 2020 signed at the end of the war by the Prime Minister of Armenia, President of Azerbaijan, and President of Russia. Even though the first line of that “statement” declared “a complete ceasefire,” this is the most unusual kind of ceasefire in the history of all wars. Instead of stopping where the opposing armies had reached, the Armenian side agreed to turn over to Azerbaijan large areas of land not conquered by Azerbaijan. Furthermore, the Prime Minister of Armenia, without any authority, signed a document relinquishing lands, including most of Artsakh and its surrounding territories, over which he had no legal authority. Therefore, the Nov. 10, 2020 trilateral agreement should be considered null and void.
Paragraph 6 of that agreement stated that “The Lachin corridor (5 km. wide), which will provide for communication between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia and at the same time will not affect the city of Shushi, shall remain under the control of peacekeeping troops of the Russian Federation. The Parties have agreed that a plan for the construction of a new route along the Lachin corridor shall be determined within the next three years, providing communication between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, with the subsequent redeployment of Russian peacekeeping troops to protect the route. The Republic of Azerbaijan shall guarantee traffic safety for citizens, vehicles and goods in both directions along the Lachin Corridor.”
This paragraph, like many others, has created problems due to its unclear wording. Almost two years after signing this agreement, during which the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan had several face to face meetings, the Armenian government did not bother to clarify the language of Paragraph 6. Armenian officials, after approving Azerbaijan’s plans, kept repeating that the alternate route to bypass the Lachin Corridor was to be built only after three years and that Azerbaijan hastily built its segment of the alternate route. In fact, the 2020 agreement stated that the alternate road will be built within, not after, three years. Armenia is planning to complete its section of the alternate road to Lachin after 250 days from this month.
Armenian officials falsely reassured the families of the three Armenian villages within the Lachin Corridor that they have plenty of time to resolve their problems, assuring them that they may remain in their homes. When Azerbaijan insisted on the immediate removal of these villagers, the Armenian families were given less than three weeks to move without having anywhere to go.
To make matters worse, Artsakh’s Minister of Territorial Management and Infrastructure, Hayk Khanumyan, warned the residents of the three Armenian villages that should they burn their houses before leaving, they will not receive the promised 10 million dram ($24,000) compensation, which is insufficient to purchase a new house. The Minister was referring to the practice of many Artsakh Armenians who burned their homes before leaving their houses after the 2020 war. Burning one’s home is a heartbreaking decision, but it is equally upsetting to leave your own house to your sworn enemy. I watched this week the disturbing video of a father burning his family home before leaving. What did the Minister expect these villagers to do? To clean their houses, leave a cooked meal on the dining table with a bottle of champagne, and a welcome sign on the door for their Azeri enemies?
In addition to turning over to Azerbaijan large parts of territories in and around Artsakh which Azerbaijan had not occupied at the time of the ceasefire, Azerbaijan conquered additional lands in both Artsakh and inside Armenia’s borders since the end of the 2020 war. Furthermore, Azerbaijan, contrary to the 2020 agreement, is still holding Armenian prisoners of war, whereas Armenia foolishly turned over all the Azeri prisoners of war shortly after the ceasefire. Armenian authorities not only do not make any efforts for the return of the Armenian prisoners and the liberation of Armenia’s occupied territories, they do not even talk or complain about them. Before complying with any of Pres. Ilham Aliyev’s orders, Armenia should first demand that Azerbaijan keep its own obligations under the 2020 agreement. It is understandable that after losing the war Armenia is in a weakened and subservient position. However, mismanaging the situation due to Armenian leaders’ incompetence and capitulating to the enemy’s every whim and desire is unacceptable. Such spineless behavior encourages Azerbaijan to demand and obtain more concessions.
With the shutting down of the Lachin corridor which connects Armenia to Artsakh, the remaining Armenians of Artsakh will be isolated, surrounded by Azerbaijan. They will lose their access to Armenia, will be cut off from electricity, heat and internet, and will be sooner or later taken over by Azerbaijan. Sadly, Artsakh and Armenia, after losing the 2020 war, are on a downward spiral. Competent new leaders may not be capable of reversing Armenia’s calamitous situation, but at least they won’t let it get any worse.
The United States Department of State posted on its website a lengthy document which described the American government’s strategy for relations with 175 countries, including, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey, in the next four years. The 16-page section covering Armenia is dated May 4, 2022. The document is titled, “Integrated Country Strategy” (ICS).
The ICS sets goals and objectives through a coordinated and collaborative planning effort among Department of State, USAID, and other U.S. Government agencies with programming in Armenia. The document indicated that the main objective is the furthering of U.S. national interests. It made it clear that the goal of the United States government is to minimize the influence of Russia in Armenia, while maximizing U.S. interests. This is not surprising, as all countries attempt to increase their influence in the world. Given Russia vs. the West confrontation in the Ukraine war, U.S. antagonism to Russia has grown exponentially. This is confirmed by the document’s own statement: “The U.S. role has become more important as regional tensions increase following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”
In addition to its anti-Russia perspective, the United States drags Armenia into its hostility with China and Iran, further meddling in Armenia’s foreign relations. The document stated: “Strengthen the ability of partners and Allies to resist and counter influence operations and disinformation, particularly from Russia and the PRC [People’s Republic of China]; Counter Russian, PRC, Iranian, and other state, and non-state actors’ strategic, conventional, and hybrid threats and emerging disruptive technologies that threaten U.S. and European security in Europe and beyond.”
The U.S. document also disparaged Armenia’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union since its other members are Belarus., Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. The document stated: “Armenia’s participation in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) may limit trade with non-EAEU members as it conforms with poorly planned or implemented EAEU standards or imposes unclear documentation requirements.” The U.S. document concealed the fact that Armenia signed on March 1, 2021 “the European Union-Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA)” to enhance trade and other relations with European countries.
Likewise, the U.S. document disparaged Armenia’s membership in the military alliance of the Collective Security Treaty Organization since its other members are Belarus., Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan.
The first paragraph of the document stated: The U.S. objective is to “advance American interests by helping Armenia succeed as a secure, prosperous and democratic country, at peace with its neighbors, and more closely integrated with the Euro-Atlantic community.” The document also stated that Armenia’s defeat in the Artsakh War of 2020 and continuing tensions along its border “highlight the importance of the U.S. role as a Minsk Group Co-Chair and other diplomatic efforts to improve Armenia’s ties with its neighbors.” This is a misleading statement as the Minsk Group no longer exists, except on paper, since Russia, as one of the three co-chairs of the Minsk Group, does not acknowledge its viability and Azerbaijan totally rejects its mediating efforts. The United States is simply using the defunct Minsk Group as a tool to counter Russia’s unilateral actions in the Artsakh conflict. The second excuse the United States used to meddle in Armenia’s internal decisions is “to help Armenia normalize relations with its neighbors,” meaning Azerbaijan and Turkey, but not Iran. At this point, Armenia’s relations are much more critical with supportive Iran than with hostile Azerbaijan and Turkey.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I am just as opposed to the undue influence of Russia in the internal affairs of Armenia, which should not be under the thumb of any country and should be able to manage its foreign relations to maximize its own national interests. What Armenia needs is a multilateral foreign policy, developing friendly relations with most countries of the world, including the Middle East (Arab States, Iran, and Israel), Asia (China and India), Africa, Europe, North and South America, and Russia. Relying on only one power, no matter which one, can only lead to disappointment and undue influence on Armenia.
The U.S. document repeated several times that “Armenia has strengthened its commitment to a democratic path that respects rule of law and human rights, though more progress is required.” Fortunately, the State Department recognized that “more progress is required.” Elsewhere in the document, the United States correctly acknowledged: “The Armenian government has taken some steps to ameliorate social and human rights concerns, but progress has been mixed.” Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan came to power in 2018 espousing the ideals of democratic rule. Regrettably, he has strayed far from the principles of democracy, establishing one-man dictatorial rule, making all governmental decisions on behalf of the Cabinet of Ministers, Parliament, President, and Courts. Since Pashinyan has antagonized most Armenians, his popularity at home has suffered tremendously, decreasing from a high of 80 percent in 2018 to a low of around 30 percent. By ignoring the violations of human rights and decline of democracy in Armenia, the United States simply disappoints Armenians in Armenia and the Diaspora, particularly, American Armenians, who question the U.S. commitment to democracy beyond paying mere lip service.
When the U.S. government and its embassy in Yerevan remain silent in the face of grave violations of human rights in Armenia, it shows that the United States, contrary to its statements, is not serious about improving democracy in the country. Similarly, when Azerbaijan regularly attacks and kills Armenians, while the United States calls on both sides to reduce tensions, the United States loses its credibility in the eyes of Armenians in and out of Armenia.
On August 4, 2022, a group of radical Shia Islamists had attacked the Embassy of Azerbaijan in London. The action happened early afternoon at a worktime. What was strange British police was present and they did not prevent attackers from this wrongdoing.
According to media reports radicals approached Embassy’s building, entered, took away some of the belongings and damaged them.
Then a dozen of members of the group went on the balcony of the Embassy, hoisted so-called flag of Huseyn. Some of them wrote something in Arabic language on the walls and windows of the Embassy which is located at the 2nd floor of the building.
Afterwards one of the assailants approached the flag of Azerbaijan, took it away and dropped on the street.
The national flag of Azerbaijan, pictures of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and his father, former President Heydar Aliyev were walked through by the radicals on the street.
And these actions were perpetrated before the eyes of London policemen who were very tolerant towards these wrongdoings.
After some 2 hours of the action policemen arrested several perpetrators. Everything was filmed and aired live.
Wasn’t this strange?
That was.
In the center of the city like London a group of radicals attack an embassy, damage belongings and policemen present do not take action to prevent this vandalism…
That was strange appearance in the most known and most secure city of the world…
So as this action happened one could think that the UK media would cover this kind of attack in the city. But what happened to the most “independent” and “free” UK media?
According to the reports most mainstream media of the UK preferred to keep silence regarding this terror attack on the Embassy of Azerbaijan…
Being a citizen of the new democracy – Azerbaijan we were really shocked not due to action of vandalism taken against the Embassy, but due to the silence of the UK mainstream media.
Wasn’t that really news worth case? Imagine, a group of radicals claimed to be Shia Islamists attack an embassy, damage its property, and this happens in more than two hours period in front of the UK police. And this story is not news worth for the UK media.
But we remember even one man whatever does in London and across the world the UK media covers it. Usually, they like to show while someone claiming to be Muslim takes any radical action. The UK media covers this kind of cases bringing to readers/viewers/listeners as a case of “radical Islam”.
Now what happened? A group, attacking Azerbaijani Embassy claimed to be Shia Islamists and they are known as radical group. They claim to be “Mahdi Servants Union” and stated an attack as response to the Azerbaijani Government “repressions” against Shia Muslims.
Just to remind, Azerbaijan is a secular new democracy, and no religion is suppressed here. But some people misusing Islamic religion for dirty purposes by the order of the Islamic Republic of Iran are trying to destabilize Azerbaijan. So, the Government of Azerbaijan takes preventive measures in order to assure stability and security. In this case radical religious groups claim to be oppressed and the likewise groups as “Mahdi Servants Union” use this opportunity to showcase against Azerbaijan.
And in this case the UK mainstream media keeps silence, turns blind eye and thus shows its bias towards the nations and countries.
That was the UK media which used to cover even the garbage dumps in Azerbaijan during the 1st European Games staged in Baku in 2015. They were paying very high “attention” on Azerbaijan using any small opportunity.
But what happened now? Why the UK media failed to follow the principles of impartiality and media ethics and prevented itself from covering a brutal attack on the Embassy?
Was that due to the Embassy being the Azerbaijani one? What would happen if the radical “Muslims” would attack any other country’s embassy like for example the Embassy of Armenia or etc.?
We believe, that the UK media would cover this attack as “terror attack of Muslim group on Christian country’s embassy”.
Then they say that the UK and even all Western media are free and independent…
