Category: Armenian Question

“The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations from different religions. Turks have taught to Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary

  • Erdogan Tells WSJ Ready to Sign Protocols, Regardless of Moldova Outcome

    Erdogan Tells WSJ Ready to Sign Protocols, Regardless of Moldova Outcome

    ERDOGAN3

    ANKARA (WSJ)–The Wall Street Journal Tuesday afternoon reported that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in an interview that the signing of the Armenia-Turkey protocols was not dependent on progress of talks to be held Thursday in Moldova between the Armenian and Azeri presidents.

    “The agreement will be signed on Oct. 10. It doesn’t have anything to do with what happens in Moldova,” Erdogan told the Wall Street Journal Sunday.

    Erdogan also said the two processes — a resolution of the Karabakh conflict and rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia — remain linked, and that a positive outcome in Moldova would help overall. Turkish officials have continued to indicate the border could take longer to open than the three months set out in the three-page protocol.

    The Turkish leader said the only obstacle to signing the deal on Saturday would come if Armenia seeks to alter the text. “This is perhaps the most important point — that Armenia should not allow its policies to be taken hostage by the Armenian diaspora,” Mr. Erdogan said. Much of Armenia’s large diaspora opposes the protocol.

    A spokesman for Armenia President Serzh Sarkisian declined to comment on whether Armenia would seek changes to the protocol. He said the government would make a statement on “steps” concerning the protocol soon.

    Visit www.wsj.com for the complete article.

  • Uruguay Armenians Demonstrate Against Protocols

    Uruguay Armenians Demonstrate Against Protocols

    Posted on 08 October 2009.

    Like is being done in various countries of the world, Sunday 4th October was Uruguay’s turn to manifest against the protocols signed between Armenia and Turkey and it was made through a rally organized by the Armenian Cause Committee of Uruguay, at the monument which remembers the Armenian martyrs opposite Surp Nerses Shnorhali Church.

    A large Armenian presence was part of the event in which representatives of different institutions expressed their message about the posed situation, as well as some political personalities of Uruguay.

    In behalf of the Armenian Cause Committee of Uruguay, Raffi Unanian emphasized that the Diaspora should revert the situation as a point of no return could be reached. The points made in the protocols establishing solutions that are disastrous and a slap to all Armenians in the world that were forced to leave their lands as consequence of the genocide. The signing of the protocols is also leaving on the way the Sevres Treaty so vindicated by the Armenian people. The Diaspora Armenians have the right to express our voice on the delicate topics that are at stake here.

    Raffi Unanian finished his participation with a quote of the national hero José Artigas: “We won’t sell the rich oriental patrimony, to the vile price of necessity .”

    Later, the President of the International Affairs of the Representatives House and the International Affairs Commission of the Mercosur Parliament, Deputy Ruben Martinez Huelmo pointed out that “It’s absurd the set out of an expert’s commission to determine the genocide existence, as it would be absurd today that a commission pointed out that the Jewish holocaust didn’t happened”. He stressed “We can’t allow this, because the Armenian genocide it’s not a topic only for the Armenian people but from all the international community. The ratification of the protocols would constitute a “legal denial”. We have to invite non Armenian communities to participate, as it is a matter of universal moral.”

    The Deputy Pablo Abdala, who participated in the act, said: “The recognition of the Armenian genocide must be full and complete by all the countries in the international community. The protocols will be a delay in the way to this, that’s why we should double our efforts not only by Armenians but also by us, who are their friends, until the truth prevails.”

    From: Javid Huseynov [[email protected]]

    Armenians protesting in Uruguay

    Look at the number of Armenians in Uruguay… significant.

    Uruguay Armenians Demonstrate Against Protocols

  • YouTube video, Kevork Yazedjian,

    YouTube video, Kevork Yazedjian,

    HISTORIAN, Kevork Yazedjian,

    A Prominent Member of AGBU

    Blasts Top Leadership’s

    Cowardly Position on The Anti-Armenian Protocols

    In a YouTube video, Kevork Yazedjian, a prominent member of AGBU, has spoken out against the Armenia-Turkey Protocols. Mr. Yazedjian has expressed his revolt against AGBU’s leadership for cowardly supporting the anti-Armenian Protocols. Several members of Armenian communities across the globe have been deeply moved by Mr. Yazedjian’s sentiment, words and overall tone. Many share his thoughts, and believe his diatribe speaks to the frustrated and enraged Armenians, both in the Motherland and the Diaspora. A Youtube viewer named “Armenia1918,” wrote in Eastern Armenian dialect (most probably from Armenia): “I salute you and love you, brother Gevorg – a devoted member of our nation who has lived and continues to live with the pains of his people and with a deep concern for our present. I am humbled by your noble spirit and courage.”

  • Mouradian: Araxie’s Journey

    Mouradian: Araxie’s Journey

    By Khatchig Mouradian • on September 28, 2009 •

    Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers is a collection of essays by Arundhati Roy recently published by Haymarket Books. The title of the book may resonate with those who closely follow Roy’s writings and are aware of the “grasshopper story.” For me, that title is a book in itself—one that recounts the formidable journey of a woman in the hearts and minds of many.

    The author (left) and David Barsamian at the Genocide Memorial in Der Zor

    And the woman I am referring to is not Arundhati Roy.

    I became part of that journey in early 2004, when, as a journalist in an Armenian daily newspaper published in Beirut, I interviewed David Barsamian, the founder and director of Alternative Radio.

    Talking about his family’s fate during the Armenian Genocide committed by the Ottoman Turks in 1915, Barsamian said, “My mother lost 22 out of 25 members in her family. The situation was not very different on my father’s side. Three of my four grandparents were murdered. My parents were thrown out from our ancestral homes in Anatolia (my mother was from a village near Dikranagerd and my father from one near Kharpert) and found themselves in New York in 1921. The culture was completely different. It was very difficult. My parents couldn’t speak English. They were poor. I was born in New York, so I was not traumatized directly in the way that they were. My parents were kyughatsis (villagers). They were uneducated like most of our people in the rural areas. So they didn’t know what had happened to them. I wanted to know and understand. How did we end up in New York? What happened to my grandparents? Why were they killed? Why were the Turks so savage to our people? But they couldn’t give me any answers. They literally didn’t know the answers themselves. One day they were living fairly normal lives and the next day this genocidal attack came upon them. So I had these questions while growing up as a child in New York and hearing about yergir (homeland). Yergir was some kind of magical place. When I heard the old timers talking about their villages it sounded like heaven. They had all kinds of wonderful fruits, vegetables, the water was so pure, etc. I knew instinctively that it was exaggerated. Understandably, they wanted to keep the memory of the good things alive. Throughout those years, I felt a certain distance from reality. I was the product of two cultures. I am speaking Armenian at home going to Armenian Church and Armenian school, but also becoming thoroughly Americanized.”

    David recorded his mother’s survival testimony years later. In 2005, he visited Lebanon and during one of his lectures, shared that testimony with members of the audience.

    I learned her name: Araxie.

    ***

    On Jan. 19, 2007, a Turkish extremist killed prominent Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in front of his newspaper offices in Istanbul. Dink had become a target after lawsuits accused him of “insulting Turkishness”—after speaking out about the Armenian Genocide and other taboos in Turkey. And, sure enough, someone finally pulled the trigger.

    On the first anniversary of Dink’s murder, Roy was invited to speak about him at the Bosphorus University in Istanbul. She accepted the invitation. In an interview I conducted with her shortly after her trip to Istanbul, Roy explained, “David happened to be in India just before I went to Turkey and we talked about the issue. It mattered to me that I knew him. I’m not saying that if I didn’t know him I wouldn’t have spoken, but it suddenly became something that was more personal.”

    Roy’s Istanbul lecture was titled “Listening to Grasshoppers: Genocide, Denial, and Celebration.”

    She began, “I never met Hrant Dink, a misfortune that will be mine for time to come. From what I know of him, of what he wrote, what he said and did, how he lived his life, I know that had I been here in Istanbul a year ago I would have been among the one hundred thousand people who walked with his coffin in dead silence through the wintry streets of this city, with banners saying, ‘We are all Armenians,’ ’We are all Hrant Dink.’ Perhaps I’d have carried the one that said, ‘One and a half million plus one’ [the number of Armenians who were systematically murdered during the genocide in 1915. The Armenians, the largest Christian minority living under Islamic Turkic rule in the area, had lived in Anatolia for more than 2,500 years.]

    She continued, “I wonder what thoughts would have gone through my head as I walked beside his coffin. Maybe I would have heard a reprise of the voice of Araxie Barsamian, mother of my friend David Barsamian, telling the story of what happened to her and her family. She was 10 years old in 1915. She remembered the swarms of grasshoppers that arrived in her village, Dubne, which was north of the historic city Dikranagerd, now Diyarbakir. The village elders were alarmed, she said, because they knew in their bones that the grasshoppers were a bad omen. They were right: The end came in a few months when the wheat in the fields was ready for harvesting.”

    Reading Roy’s words, I thought that Araxie had finally returned to her ancestral lands, after having been deported and the majority of her family killed. An intellectual and activist from India had brought her back with her words.

    ***

    Bones…

    In September 2009, I invited a few friends, including David, to accompany me on a pilgrimage to Der Zor. Located in modern-day Syria, the deserts of Der Zor were the destination of hundreds of thousands of Armenian deportees who were brutally massacred in 1916. In the minds of Armenians, Der Zor is synonymous with their people’s destruction.

    We visited the genocide memorial in Der Zor and then headed to a nearby village that was, more than 90 years ago, one of the sites of the mass murder of Armenians.

    Sitting in the middle of a village was a large mound of earth that did not know how to hide secrets. Each time we scratched a little at the soil, pieces of human bones emerged.

    And I thought about the family my grandparents had lost during the genocide. I might have been holding fractured bones of one of them.

    I looked at David through the haze in my eyes. I knew too well who he was thinking of.

  • In Pursuit of Justice and True Friendship

    In Pursuit of Justice and True Friendship

    By George Aghjayan <[email protected]> Armenian National Committee of America Eastern Region Board Member. On Sat., Sept. 19, a demonstration against the Turkey-Armenia protocols was held in front of the Permanent Mission of Armenia to the United Nations in New York. The demonstration, organized by the Armenian Youth Federation (AYF), brought together close to 800 protesters. Among the speakers at the demonstration were ARF Eastern USA Central Committee member George Aghjayan. The article below is based on his speech. For over 90 years, we have been waging a war for justice. Justice for the over one and a half million Armenians murdered at the orders of the Ottoman Turkish government. Justice for the thousands of Armenian cultural monuments destroyed by the governments of Turkey and Azerbaijan and continuing to this very day. Justice for the hundreds of thousands of survivors whose lives were never the same after the horrors they witnessed and endured. Justice so that future generations of Armenians can grow up without fear of persecution and Armenia can truly be free, independent, and united. Today, we have entered the final battle of that war. This battle will not end today, but it surely has already begun. The Turkish government understands this well. As with any war, the final stage is marked with extreme aggression and tactics born of desperation. This is not the time for us to blink and most definitely is not the time to capitulate on our demands. Tragically, the protocols agreed to for the development of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia do just that. The protocol commits to "territorial integrity and inviolability of frontiers." The right of self-determination is not mentioned. The people of Artsakh fought long and sacrificed much to guarantee their rights and security. We have an obligation to ensure those sacrifices were not in vain. The very law Azerbaijan used to secede from the Soviet Union allowed for autonomous regions within seceding republics to choose their own path. Artsakh chose independence from Azerbaijan. The territory of an independent Azerbaijan has never, nor should it ever, include Artsakh. The protocols call for the creation of an historical commission to "define existing problems." The existing problem is the Armenian Genocide and it is a crime requiring justice not an historical commission with the sole aim of questioning the indisputable facts. The protocol commits to "refrain from pursuing any policy incompatible with the spirit of good neighborly relations." Turkey will use this provision to stifle all efforts at international recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the diaspora. For years, Turkey has portrayed resolutions recognizing the Armenian Genocide as racist and detrimental to efforts at rapprochement between Turks and Armenians. In addition, today the United States legal system is being used by Turkish advocates to further limit any discussion of the genocide. It is Turkey's decades of denial that constitute unfriendly relations. As esteemed scholar Israel Charny notes, "Denials of genocide make no sense unless one sees in them renewed opportunities for the same passions, meanings, and pleasures that were at work in the genocide itself, now revived in symbolic processes of murdering the dignity of the survivors, rationality, truth, and even history itself." To argue the facts is to misinterpret the true motives of denial and supply a victory for the deniers. Lasting peace in the region cannot be based on the humiliation of the survivors of the Armenian Genocide and their descendents. The protocol confirms "the existing border between the two countries as defined by the relevant treaties." This is a clear reference to the Treaty of Kars and the Treaty of Lausanne. The former signed under duress and the latter Armenia was not a party to. As former Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian noted, Turkey is currently noncompliant with the Kars Treaty. Thus, through the ratification of this agreement and initiation of diplomatic relations, Armenia would make the Treaty of Kars ironclad and be relinquishing any rights to western Armenia granted through the Treaty of Sevres. Some have claimed that the current border is a fait accompli, that borders between nations only change as a result of war. However, in 1932 Turkey acquired a border with Nakhichevan from land exchanged with Iran. In 1939, Turkey acquired a portion of the Haleb province. Neither were the result of war. The protocol emphasizes the decision to open the common border between Turkey and Armenia. This implies that the border was closed by mutual agreement. In fact, since 1993, Turkey has unilaterally enforced an illegal blockade of Armenia. Turkish officials have stated clearly that the objective of closing the border was to create such economic hardship so as to result in the large-scale emigration of Armenians and thus to serve as a continuation of the genocidal process. The Armenian Genocide was meant to end any possibility of an independent Armenia. The current economic and political difficulties for Armenia are a direct consequence of the genocide. It is thus logical that any just resolution to the genocide would require ensuring the sustainability of Armenia-economically, culturally, and demographically. A truly remorseful Turkey would accept that the current borders of Armenia are morally unacceptable. Our opponents would like to portray us as extremists, as lacking pragmatism. However, the lessons of history have shown that lasting peace and prosperity can only be accomplished through mutual respect, trust, and cooperation-none of which can be achieved through deception and lies. This is the case whether we are discussing relationships at a personal level or between countries. As I have said previously, the protocols are a disaster for Armenian foreign policy and are meant to relegate Armenia to the dustbin of history. We demand a different path, one that will lead to true friendship between Turks and Armenians and peace between Turkey and Armenia.

  • 10 Major Concerns Regarding Armenia-Turkey Protocols

    10 Major Concerns Regarding Armenia-Turkey Protocols







    SASSUN-2
    Publisher, The California Courier
    Senior Contributor, USA Armenian Life Magazine In earlier columns, I had described the major negative aspects of the already initialed Armenia-Turkey Protocols made public on August 31. The concerns I had expressed dealt with two unacceptable preconditions — recognizing the territorial integrity of Turkey and establishing a joint committee of experts to study historical archives, a not so-veiled reference to re-examining the Armenian Genocide.Below is a more comprehensive evaluation, providing 10 reasons why the Armenian government should not have initialed, and should not sign and ratify these Protocols:

    1) Armenia’s leaders made the misjudgment of trying to resolve a large number of emotionally-charged Armenian-Turkish issues all at once, through a single agreement. Decades of antagonism cannot be dealt with in such haste. Armenian officials should have proceeded cautiously and gradually, starting with the simple step of establishing diplomatic relations, followed by the opening of the border. More complicated issues should have been left for a later date.

    2) Since the declared purpose of these negotiations is the opening of the border with Armenia — which Turkey shut down 16 years ago — there was no reason to conduct such protracted and complex negotiations, and draft an elaborate document that included many unrelated and unacceptable conditions. It may have been wiser to draft a one-sentence agreement that would have simply stated: “Armenia and Turkey agree to establish diplomatic relations and declare their mutual border open on January 1, 2010.” In fact, such a one-line agreement was adopted by the United States and Turkey in 1927, when establishing diplomatic relations.

    3) Armenia did not have to make any concessions in order to entice Turkey to open its border. Since Turkey has been desperately trying to join the European Union for several decades, it has no choice but to open its border with Armenia. The EU requires that all member states have open borders with neighboring countries.

    4) By rushing to shut down the border in 1993, Turkey deprived itself of an important leverage over Armenia. Should Turkey reopen the border, it would once again repossess that leverage, holding the threat of closing the border as a Damoclean Sword over Armenia’s head. This threat becomes particularly potent, once Armenia’s population is increasingly dependent on imported, cheap Turkish foodstuffs and goods. Should Turkey decide to close the border in the future under some pretext, Armenia’s leaders would not be able to reverse the damage done to the nation’s interests, even if they abrogated the Protocols!

    5) Prime Minister Erdogan said once again last week that Turkey would not open its border with Armenia, unless the Karabagh (Artsakh) conflict is resolved. Armenia’s leaders should announce that they will not sign these Protocols, since Turkish officials have made it crystal clear that they have no intention of keeping their side of the bargain.

    6) Retired Turkish Ambassador Yalim Eralp made an important disclosure during a recent interview. He stated that the Turkish Parliament, while ratifying the Protocols, could declare them to be valid only after the resolution of the Karabagh conflict. Should the Turks advance such a condition, the Armenian Parliament could retaliate by requiring that the Protocols go into effect only after Turkey acknowledges the Armenian Genocide and Azerbaijan recognizes the Republic of Artsakh!

    7) The Protocols do not include any requirement that they be signed and ratified by a particular date. The oft-mentioned October 12 or 13 signature dates are not mentioned in the text of the Protocols. The Armenian government should not rush to sign and ratify these Protocols. Armenia’s leaders may yet be saved from damaging their country’s interests by Turkey’s reluctance to ratify the Protocols. Turkey may blink first!

    8) Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian admitted last week that there is no legal requirement to submit these Protocols to Parliament for ratification. However, such ratification would unnecessarily compound the damage done to Armenia’s national interests.

    9) The Armenian government made no attempt during the lengthy negotiations with Turkey to consult with Diaspora Armenians, despite the fact that the Protocols addressed vital pan-Armenian issues. Months ago, when organizations and individuals expressed serious concerns regarding the preliminary text of the Protocols, they were simply ignored by the Armenian authorities. Attempts to hold discussions at the eleventh hour are futile, since the Armenian Foreign Minister has declared that the Protocols cannot be amended.

    10) When the Armenian President met with leaders of more than 50 political parties in Yerevan last week, the five-hour-long “consultations” were held behind closed doors. Regrettably, only the President’s remarks were publicized. One would hope that when Pres. Sargsyan goes on his planned trip in early October to Paris, New York, Los Angeles, Moscow, and Beirut, his discussions with Diaspora leaders would be more open and transparent, and preferably televised.

    The one unintended outcome of this heated controversy is the coming together of diverse Armenian organizations to take a common stand against these Protocols. It is everyone’s earnest hope that the intense intra-Armenian discord would not last long and Armenia’s leaders would find the courage and wisdom to stand down from their decision to sign and ratify these Protocols detrimental to the Armenian Cause.