Turkish Forum

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

  • Turkey Cannot Open Its Borders

    Turkey Cannot Open Its Borders

    Turkey Cannot Open Its Borders to the

    Heinous, Rancorous Tyranny of Armenia

    Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis March 15, 2009 –

    If Turkey should be further democratized and harmonized with Europe, then why should Turkey open its borders to Armenia – a criminal tyranny denounced as such by the HRW in a lengthy and devastating Report?

    In four earlier articles entitled “Turkey´s Ongoing Colonization: Only Reason for Recognizing Racist Armenian Tyranny” ), “Devastating HRW on Armenian Tyranny Imposes Cancellation of the Gul – Erdogan Pro-Armenian Policy” ), “Recognition of the Armenian Tyranny by Ankara Equals Colonization of Turkey by Freemasonic EU – US” ) and “Turkish – Armenian Rapprochement to Be Linked on Human Rights Conditions´ Improvement in Armenia” ), I republished parts of the devastating HRW Report (the HRW Press Release issued on the occasion of the Report publication a few days ago, the Contents, the Summary, the Methodology, the Background, and the 2008 Presidential Elections).

    I called for a master coup against the unrepresentative Erdogan gang of high traitors, freemasons and besotted pseudo-Islamists, who implement the Anti-Turkish colonial agenda of England and France; in fact, the colonial powers imposed on the Freemasonic pupils Gul and Erdogan the Turkish – Armenian rapprochement.

    In the present article, I republish the HRW Report chapter on the Post-Election Protests and Violence. In forthcoming articles, I will republish further parts of the devastating HRW Report on the Armenian Tyranny.

    V. The Post-Election Protests and Violence

    Overview

    Prior to election day, Levon Ter-Petrossian had called on his supporters to gather in Yerevan on February 20-when preliminary election results would be known-for either a victory or a protest rally depending on the outcome.[43]From February 21 a continuous protest was installed on Freedom Square (also known as Opera Square), on the north side of Yerevan city center. Daily, several thousand protestors would gather to hear opposition leaders speak, and each night a group of protestors stayed in front of the National Opera House on Freedom Square, mostly in tents, their numbers varying from a few hundred to just over a thousand.[44]

    The authorities allowed the protest encampment and rallies for nine days. Ararat Mahtesyan, first deputy chief of national police, told Human Right Watch that although the demonstration was illegal-it was being conducted without permission from the Yerevan city authorities[45]-it was initially tolerated as the Central Election Commission had not announced final results of the presidential election, and police investigations into election day complaints were still ongoing.[46]Â

    The Yerevan mayor’s office issued a statement on February 25 saying the protests were unauthorized, “in violation of the law on assembly, rallies, demonstrations and marches,” and urging demonstrators to call a halt to them.[47] Two days later the Armenian police issued a statement urging an end to the unauthorized rallies, saying that “the police are fully resolved and intend to protect the constitutional order in the country and public safety within the bounds set for it by the law.”[48]

    The authorities moved to suppress the protests on March 1, and in several episodes of violent confrontation between law enforcement officials and protestors, at least eight protestors and two police officers were killed and more than 130 people were injured. President Kocharyan announced a 20-day state of emergency under which all public gatherings and strikes would be banned, and freedom of movement and independent broadcasting severely limited. The events of March 1 are described in detail below.

    Armenia’s International Legal Obligations on Police Use of Force

    Governments are obligated to respect basic human rights standards governing the use of force in police operations, including in the dispersal of legal or illegal demonstrations. These universal standards are embodied in the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.[49] The Basic Principles provide the following:

    Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.

    When using force, law enforcement officials shall exercise restraint and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and to the legitimate objective to be achieved. Law enforcement officials must seek to minimize damage and injury.[50]

    With respect to the dispersal of assemblies that are unlawful but non-violent, “law enforcement officials shall avoid the use of force or, where that is not practicable, shall restrict such force to the minimum extent necessary.”[51]

    The European Convention on Human Rights requires all states to prohibit and prevent the arbitrary taking of life and the infliction of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment especially by state officials. Case law of the European Court has confirmed that police authorities must prepare and carry out operations to minimize any risk to people’s lives, and to completely prohibit ill-treatment. Where there is evidence that the police have taken a life or committed inhuman or degrading treatment, the authorities must ensure that there is an open investigation leading to the investigation and prosecution of any police officer responsible.[52]

    The Council of Europe’s European Code of Police Ethics states that “police shall use force only when strictly necessary and only to the extent required to obtain a legitimate objective” and that “police must always verify the lawfulness of their intended actions.”[53]

    A recent viewpoint issued by the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg, on impunity for police violence, states that “illegal behaviour by policemen is particularly serious as the very role of the police in a democratic society is to defend the population against crime, including violent crime. When the law enforcement forces themselves break the law, the whole system of justice is derailed.” Citing European Court of Human Rights case law, the commissioner noted also that “[t]he use of force is justified only in a situation of absolute necessity and should be practiced with the maximum restraint.”[54]Â

    The statements Human Rights Watch took from demonstrators and bystanders suggest that the first police action, in the early morning of March 1 against the Freedom Square tent encampment, entailed excessive use of force, without warning and in the absence, at the start, of resistance. Although later protestors began throwing stones at police from side streets near Freedom Square, one participant described being beaten up by police who found him lying on the ground.

    The events that unfolded later in the day were both more violent and more contentious. Sections of the very large crowd gathered near the French embassy appear to have been armed with metal rods, sticks, paving stones, and even petrol bombs, and seem to have initiated some of the clashes with police, such as at Yerevan City Hall on the afternoon of March 1. On the other hand, participants’ statements to us show that police, in their actions that evening to end the demonstration, opened with overly aggressive measures (tracer bullet fire and teargas, and no verbal warnings to disperse), and used excessive force against people who were not physically challenging them. As protestors then responded with using force against police, at least some of the fatalities appear to have occurred because police discharged their firearms deliberately in circumstances where lethal force was not called for, or through improper use of crowd control measures, such as firing teargas canisters at close range.Â

    Armenia’s obligation to investigate all allegations of excessive use of force by police is discussed below, in Chapter VI.

    The March 1 Events in Detail

    Early morning removal of protestors and protest camp at Freedom Square

    On the night of February 29 to March 1, several hundred protestors were on Freedom Square, staying in some 25 to 30 tents.[55] Police moved against the protestors’ camp early on the morning of March 1.

    According to first deputy police chief Ararat Mahtesyan, speaking to Human Rights Watch four weeks later, the police had arrived at the square on March 1 to conduct a search, acting on information that demonstrators had been arming themselves with metal rods, and possibly firearms, in preparation for committing acts of violent protest on March 1. Mahtesyan said that initially a group of 25-30 police officers, including experts and investigators, were sent to do the search of the protestors’ camp. When the group tried to conduct the search, the protestors turned aggressive and resisted police with wooden sticks and iron bars, resulting in injuries to several policemen. At that stage more police had to be deployed and had to use force to disperse the crowd and support the group conducting the search. According to Mahtesyan, this operation lasted for about 30 minutes and 10 policemen sustained injuries as a result.[56] Despite Human Rights Watch’s request, Mahtesyan did not provide any details about these injured police and the nature of the injuries they sustained.[57]

    Several witnesses interviewed separately by Human Rights Watch consistently described a different sequence of events in front of the Opera House on the morning of March 1. According to them, sometime shortly after 6 a.m., while it was still dark and as demonstrators started waking, news spread that police were arriving at Freedom Square. Hundreds of Special Forces police in riot armor, with helmets, plastic shields, and rubber truncheons, started approaching the square, in four or five rows, from Tumanyan Street and Mashtots Avenue.[58] Police surrounded the square and stood there for a few minutes.[59]

    Levon Ter-Petrossian, who had been sleeping in his car parked at the square, was woken up. According to the account he gave Human Rights Watch, he addressed the protestors, some of whom by this time were out of their tents, asking them to step back from the police line, and then to stay where they were and wait for instructions from the police. He also warned the police that there were women and children among the demonstrators.[60]

    Even before Ter-Petrossian finished his address, police advanced towards the demonstrators in several lines, beating their truncheons against their plastic shields. According to multiple witnesses, the police made no audible demand for anyone to disperse nor gave any indication of the purpose of their presence. They started pushing demonstrators from the square with their shields, causing some to panic and scream and others to run. Some demonstrators appeared ready to fight the police, which was why, according to Ter-Petrossian, he urged the crowd not to resist the police. Others were still in their tents.[61]

    Immediately afterwards, without any warning, riot police attacked the demonstrators, using rubber truncheons, iron sticks, and electric shock batons. According to Ter-Petrossian, a group of about 30 policemen under the command of Gen. Grigor Sargsyan approached him and forcibly took him aside. When asked if he was arrested, Ter-Petrossian was told that police were there to guarantee his safety and that he was requested to cooperate.[62] Levon Ter-Petrossian was subsequently taken home and effectively put under house arrest.[63]

    Vahagn V., a 42-year-old economist who had spent the night on the square in front of the Opera House, gave this account:

    Without any warning police just started beating truncheons on their shields, making loud noises that created chaos. In a minute or so they started attacking from the side of Tumanyan and Mashtots. They switched off the microphones and electricity. It was still dark. The only lights I could see were small red lights that I thought were flashlights, but they turned out to be from electric shock devices. One of them touched me on the left hand and it burnt my skin. They were attacking from all sides and beating people. Women were screaming. We ran. It was complete chaos…[64]

    At least two witnesses described to Human Rights Watch how police ripped off the ropes supporting the tents and as the tents collapsed the police continued assaulting, with their truncheons, people who were still inside.[65] Gagik Shamshyan, a photo correspondent for political opposition newspapers who attempted to photograph the raid, was assaulted by police and then detained. He told Human Rights Watch:

    Policemen in riot uniforms in helmets, shields, and truncheons were beating the protestorsâ EURO |. They were also pouring buckets of water on the tents and continued to assault with truncheons. I was shooting photos and after making about 20-25 shots, some policemen saw my camera’s flash and about 15 of them attacked me. One of them recognized me and instructed others to beat me â EURO | Another one grabbed my camera and hit me with a truncheon on my back. I fell down and they continued to beat me with truncheons and kick me. They handcuffed me and were pulling my hands from behind. It was very painful … Two of them grabbed me by my jacket and dragged me for about 40 meters, with my face down on the pavement. Another officer who recognized me shouted, “Beat him! He writes bad stuff about us …” [He] approached me and threatened to gouge my eyes out, and even pushed his finger to my eye. I was terrified …[66]

    Police kept Shamshyan on the ground for about 20 minutes, assaulted him periodically, and then drove him to the central police station.[67] He was later released.

    A 54-year-old artist, Sanasar S., gave Human Rights Watch the following account of what happened to him that morning:

    There were at least as many police in riot gear as people gathered in front of the Opera. Without saying anything police surrounded us and attacked us with truncheons and electric shock devices. People panicked and started running away. I ran together with about 20 protestors towards the Northern Avenue, chased by the riot police. At the intersection of Pushkin Street and Mashtots Avenue about six of them caught up with me. I felt a blow to my head and I fell on the ground, losing consciousness. When I regained my senses I was surrounded by police. Two of them were holding me on my feet as I could not stand. My shoulder ached and my nose was bleeding.[68]

    It turned out that Sanasar S. had sustained a broken arm. His subsequent detention is described below in Chapter V.

    Murad M., age 30, told Human Rights Watch that a police officer chased him off the square and hit him on the head, causing him to lose consciousness. “I momentarily lost consciousness after a blow on the head, and fell … When I came to my senses, my brother was carrying me away from the square. My head was bleeding and my hat was all covered in blood.”[69] Murad M. required seven stitches on the right side of his forehead. He sustained bruises to his right hand, back, and legs. Fearing arrest, he refrained from going to a hospital and instead sought medical assistance from a private doctor.[70]

    Hovsep H., a 32-year-old designer, ran from the square with a group of about one hundred others, with the police chasing them. The group thinned out as some people split off, and was in a stop-and-go chase with police for about an hour. At times the group threw stones at the police. When police finally caught up with Hovsep H., he was assaulted. He told Human Rights Watch:

    I felt very tired and could not run anymore. I tried to get into an apartment block entrance, but it was locked. Three or four police ran after me. I felt really exhausted and decided to lie down and cover my face with my hands to protect it. Policemen who were after me started beating me. They were using truncheons and kicking me with their boots. They were beating on my back, head, and kidney area. I felt a huge blow on my head and I lost the feeling of reality, I could not even feel pain anymore and it all felt like a dream. I don’t remember anything else, but when I regained my senses, my head was bleeding and the jacket I wore was all bloodied. I was already in a police station by that time.[71]

    Hovsep H.’s experience of further ill-treatment in detention is recounted in Chapter V.

    As a result of the early morning police actions on Freedom Square, 31 people were officially reported to be injured, including six policemen.[72]

    The police claimed that after the demonstrators were dispersed they found a stock of real and makeshift weapons, including “three guns, 15 grenades, two bullet cases and 138 bullets of various calibers, plastic explosives, big number of makeshift weapons, syringes and drugs.”[73] All witnesses and victims interviewed by Human Rights Watch claimed that the alleged arms cache was planted after the demonstration was dispersed. The chairman of the ad hoc parliamentary commission established to investigate the March 1 events told Human Rights Watch in January 2009 that he had not seen any evidence linking the arms cache to the demonstration’s participants or organizers.[74]

    Notes

    43] OSCE/ODIHR, “Post Election Interim Report, 20 February â EURO” 3 March, 2008.” Addressing a mass rally in the capital Yerevan on 16 February, Ter-Petrossian warned the authorities that a rally planned by his supporters in Yerevan on February 20 would turn into open-ended protests if the election was rigged. Reported by Arminfo, February 16, 2008.

    44] Human Rights Watch interviews with Vahagn V., Yerevan, March 13; Hovsep H., Yerevan, March 26, 2008, Arsen A., Yerevan, March 28; and Ararat Mahtesian, first deputy chief of the Police of the Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, March 28, 2008.

    45] Â According to legislation in force at the time, organizers of mass public events had to notify the head of the community where the event was being held at least three working days in advance. Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations, 2004, as amended by the law adopted on October 4, 2005, http://www.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/6628Â (accessed January 16, 2009), art. 11. Ter-Petrossian’s campaign notified the Yerevan city government that it would hold a rally on February 20 in Yerevan. However, the campaign did not lodge a notification with the city government on the subsequent assembly in Freedom Square from February 21 onwards. See OSCE/ODIHR, “Post-Election Interim Report, 20 February â EURO” 3 March 2008.”

    46] Human Rights Watch interview with Ararat Mahtesian, Yerevan, March 28, 2008.

    47] “Armenian capital’s mayor urges protestors to stop unsanctioned rallies,” Arminfo (in Russian), February 25, 2008; and “Armenian Officials Demand End To Election Protests â EURO” AFP,” Dow Jones International News, February 25, 2008.

    48] “Armenian Police urges opposition to suspend rallies in capital,” Arminfo (in Russian), February 27, 2008.

    49] Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112 (1990).

    50] Ibid., principles 4 and 5.

    51] Ibid., principle 13.

    52] See, for example, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, Application No. 43577/98 and 43579/98, Grand Chamber Judgment of 6 July 2005

    53] Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Rec(2001)10 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Code of Police Ethics (Adopted on September 19, 2001 at the 765th meeting of Ministers’ Deputies), (accessed September 1, 2008), paras. 37-38.

    54] Thomas Hammarberg, “There must be no impunity for police violence,” Viewpoint of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, December 3, 2007, (accessed December 3, 2007).

    55] Ibid.; Human Rights Watch interview with Gagik Shamshyan, photo correspondent for Aravot and Chorrord Ishkhanutyun newspapers, Yerevan, March 12, 2008.

    56] Human Rights Watch interview with Ararat Mahtesian, Yerevan, March 28, 2008.

    57] Ibid.

    58] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Sanasar S., March 1, 2008; Human Rights Watch interviews with Vahagn V., March 13; and Arsen A., March 28, 2008.

    59] Human Rights Watch interview with Levon Ter-Petrossian, Yerevan, March 29, 2008.

    60] Ibid. This was confirmed by all witnesses and victims of the event interviewed by Human Rights Watch.

    61] Â Ibid.; Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Sanasar S., March 1, 2008; Human Rights Watch interviews with Vahagn V., March 13; and Arsen A., Yerevan, March 28, 2008.

    62] Human Rights Watch interview with Levon Ter-Petrossian, Yerevan, March 29, 2008.

    63] Ibid.

    64] Human Rights Watch interview with Vahagn V., March 13, 2008.

    65] Ibid.; Human Rights Watch interview with Gagik Shamshyan, March 12, 2008.

    66] Ibid.

    67] Ibid.

    68] Human Rights Watch interview with Sanasar S., March 26, 2008.

    69] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with interview with Murad M., March 1, 2008.

    70] Ibid.

    71] Human Rights Watch interview with Hovsep H., Yerevan, March 26, 2008.

    72] “Thirty-one injured as Armenian police disperse opposition rally,” Arminfo (in Russian), March 1, 2008. The report quoted Ministry of Health information.

    73] Human Rights Watch interview with Ararat Mahtesyan, March 28, 2008. See also, OSCE/ODIHR, “Post Election Interim Report, 20 February â EURO” 3 March, 2008,” March 7, 2008, (accessed June 10, 2008).

    74] Human Rights Watch interview with Samvel Nikoyan, Yerevan, January 13, 2009.

    Note

    Picture: Garni Mithraeum, a temple dedicated to Mithra, the Iranian god of the Ancient Armenians. Before being misunderstood and misused by the Armenian state authorities and academia, Armenian History has been totally falsified by the colonialist historians and philologists of France and England, who projected in it a touch of Hellenism, one of their fabrications that has never had any real effect in Armenia. It was all geared in order to set up a false sense of Greek – Armenian – Western European Anti-Islamic, Anti-Ottoman, and Anti-Turkish alliance which was a total catastrophe for all these Oriental populations and a real success for the colonial elites of France and England. Ancient Armenia is definitely a para-Iranian state that, although constantly opposed to the Persian supremacy within the wider Iran area, greatly contributed to the diffusion of Mithraism, a totally Iranian religion, among the Greek speaking peoples of Anatolia, the Aegean Sea and the Balkans, and further beyond throughout the Roman Empire and Northern and Eastern European territories out of the Roman imperial control.

  • Opening the Border with Armenia

    Opening the Border with Armenia

    Deciphering Turkey’s Delay Tactics in

    Opening the Border with Armenia

    [email protected]

    While some Armenians are dismissing Pres. Obama’s solemn campaign pledge to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, Turkish leaders have taken the president’s promise very seriously.

    Ankara has dispatched to Washington several high-level delegations, both before and after Obama’s inauguration, with the express purpose of lobbying key decision-makers in the White House and Congress on this issue.

    The Turkish scheme to induce Pres. Obama not to acknowledge the Genocide, however, was dealt a serious blow after Prime Minister Erdogan harshly criticized Israel’s invasion of Gaza and angrily confronted Pres. Shimon Peres in Davos. Incensed by Erdogan’s words, Israeli and American-Jewish leaders told visiting Turkish dignitaries that they would no longer oppose the pending congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide.

    As April 24 gets closer, Turkish leaders have accelerated their two-pronged campaign, trying to block the congressional resolution as well as Pres. Obama’s anticipated statement on the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Beyond Turkey’s persistent efforts in Washington through its Ambassador, lobbying firms, and parliamentary delegations, Turkish leaders also pressured American officials passing through Ankara in recent weeks, such as U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    After returning home from their lobbying junkets, Turkish officials said they were repeatedly told in Washington that unless Turkey opens the border with Armenia promptly, there is a good chance that Pres. Obama would use the term genocide in his April 24 statement. This may be the reason why Foreign Minister Ali Babajan admitted last week that there is a “risk” the American President would acknowledge the Armenian Genocide next month.

    Why is Turkey then seemingly going against its interests by continuing to keep the border closed and risking a presidential acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide?

    In my view, highly experienced Turkish diplomats are playing a sophisticated game of delay tactics to gain maximum benefit from the eventual opening of the border with Armenia.

    The Turkish game plan is to block or dilute Pres. Obama’s April 24 statement, either without opening the border at all or by delaying the opening as much as possible. Turkish officials create the impression that relations between Armenia and Turkey are steadily improving, as demonstrated by “secret” meetings which are then leaked to the press as well as publicized high-level meetings. Such encounters, including “football diplomacy,” have scored public relations points for Turkey and given credibility to its claim that relations are indeed improving.

    The Turks have several reasons for preferring to give the impression that they are about to open the border, without actually doing so.

    First, any conciliatory move towards Armenia would damage Turkey’s relations with Azerbaijan. Turkish officials have tried to manage this problem by making the return of Artsakh (Karabagh) to Azerbaijan a pre-condition for opening the border. Since the Armenian side appears to have rejected this proposal, Ankara has been forced to abandon any direct linkage between the border opening and the Artsakh conflict.

    Second, by constantly repeating that they are engaged in “delicate negotiations” with Armenia, Turkish officials have sought to prevent other countries, particularly the United States, from acknowledging the Armenian Genocide, even though these two issues are completely unrelated.

    Third, Turkish officials realize that opening the border promptly would not be in their best interest. The more they drag the negotiations, the more concessions they hope to secure from Armenia — a time-honored Turkish diplomatic practice!

    Fourth, by delaying the border opening, Turkey also gains more time to negotiate with the Obama administration and reach a favorable understanding on both the congressional resolution and the President’s April 24 statement.

    Fifth, another important reason why Prime Minister Erdogan and his ruling party are using delaying tactics is that any deal with Armenia before the March 29th local Turkish elections would harm their standing in the polls.

    Sixth, Turkish officials would probably wait until the first week of April, when Pres. Obama is expected to visit their country, to discuss directly with him the linkage between the border issue and granting transit rights to U.S. troops leaving Iraq, sending additional Turkish soldiers to Afghanistan, as well as blocking U.S. acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide.

    Even though Armenian-Americans can neither match Turkey’s vast resources nor its powerful clout in Washington, they are naturally very concerned about these Turkish ploys and are hard at work to ensure that Pres. Obama carries out his campaign promise on the Armenian Genocide.

    Despite reports from reliable sources that Armenia and Turkey will be signing an agreement when Foreign Minister Ali Babajan visits Yerevan on April 16, one would hope that Armenian officials would delay signing any document with Ankara just before April 24. Otherwise, the Armenian leadership would not only desecrate the memory of the Armenian martyrs, but would also provide the perfect excuse to the Obama administration not to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide in April. After waiting for the opening of the border for 16 years, Armenia could well afford to wait a few more days!

    =====================================

    Harut Sassounian, the publisher of The California Courier newspaper, is the President of the United Armenian Fund which has shipped $460 million worth of humanitarian assistance to Armenia since 1989. He is also the Vice Chairman of The Lincy Foundation which has funded $230 million worth of infrastructure projects in Armenia and Artsakh. He worked for Procter and Gamble in Geneva, Switzerland, as an international marketing executive from 1978 to 1982. He served for 10 years as a non-governmental delegate on human rights at the United Nations in Geneva, playing a key role in the UN recognition of the Armenian Genocide in 1985. He has a Master’s degree in International Affairs from Columbia University (NY) and an MBA from Pepperdine University. His book, “The Armenian Genocide: The World Speaks Out, 1915-2005, Documents and Declarations,” published in 2005, was republished in Arabic translation in Lebanon in 2006. He has been awarded the “Anania Shiragatsi” medal of honor by the President of Armenia and has received numerous other awards for his leadership and community activities.

    Sassounian’s popular weekly opinion column is widely printed across Armenian press. Published in California State of the USA. An Armenian activist and lobbyist.

  • Armenian Studies at a Threshold Society for Armenian Studies

    Armenian Studies at a Threshold Society for Armenian Studies

    35th Anniversary Conference
    March 26-28, 2009
    University of California, Los Angeles

    Session 1. Thursday, 1:00-2:30 p.m.
    Medieval Literature and the Arts
    Theo van Lint, Oxford University, Chair

    * Andrea Scala, University of Milan, “About the Name of the Latin
       Language in Classical Armenian”
    * Robert Thomson, Oxford University, Emeritus, “Armenian Biblical
       Commentaries: The Present State of Research”
    * Sona Haroutyunian, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, “Dante
       Alighieri and the Mekhitarist School of Translation”

    Session 2. Thursday, 2:30-4:00 p.m.
    Medieval History and Culture
    Anne Elizabeth Redgate, Newcastle University, Chair

    * Sergio La Porta, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, “Cultural
       Interaction and Cultural Strategies in Post-Seljuk Armenia”
    * Sara Nur Yildiz, Bilgi University, Istanbul, “Competing for the
       Il-Khan’s Favor: Seljuk and Armenian Rivalry in Thirteenth Century
       Mongol-Dominated Anatolia”
    * Tom Sinclair, University of Cyprus, “Coins, Trade, and Cities in
       Greater Armenia during the Il-Khanid Period”

    Refreshments, 4:00-4:15 p.m.

    Session 3. Thursday, 4:15.6:30 p.m.
    Researching the Contemporary Armenian Diaspora: Consolidating the
       Past, Situating the Future
    Khachig Tölölyan, Wesleyan University, Chair

    * Sossie Kasbarian, Graduate Institute of International and
       Development Studies, Geneva, “From Exile to Empowerment Reinvigorating
       the Concept of Diaspora: The Armenian Case”
    * Aida Boudjikanian, Montreal, “The Literature on the Armenian
       Diaspora in France and Canada”
    * Susan Pattie, University College London, “Twenty-First Century
       Armenians: Is Anyone Paying Attention?”
    * Anny Bakalian, City University of New York, “Still Alive and
       Thriving: Assimilation and Identity among Armenian Americans in the
       21st Century”
    * Nelida Boulghourdjian, University of Buenos Aires, “Migration
       Studies in Argentina: The Armenian Case”
    * Discussant: Aram Yengoyan, University of California, Davis

    Friday, March 27, 2009, 1200 Rolfe Hall, 9 A.M. 9 P.M.

    Session 4. Friday, 9:00 a.m.
    Armenian History as Connected History
    Houri Berberian, California State University-Long Beach, Chair

    * Sebouh Aslanian, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, “From
       ‘Autonomous’ to ‘Interactive’ Histories: World History’s Challenge to
       Armenian Studies”
    * Peter Cowe, UCLA, “The Armenian Oikoumene of the 11th to 14th
       Century in Search of a Holistic Discourse”
    * Rachel Goshgarian, Zohrab Center, New York, “The Futuwwa and
       Armenian History in the Late Medieval ‘Islamicate’ World of Anatolia”
    * Elyse Semerdjian, Whitman College, “Morality, Communalism, and the
       Armenians of Ottoman Aleppo”

    Refreshments, 11:00-11:15 a.m.

    Session 5. Friday, 11:15 a.m.1:00 p.m.
    Economy, Society, and Culture of Early Modern East Central Europe
       (14th 19th Centuries)
    George Bournoutian, Iona College, Chair

    * Andreas Helmedach, Center for the History and Culture of East
       Central Europe (GWZO), Leipzig, “Armenian Minorities as Actors in
       Early Modern Globalization”
    * Bálint Kovács, Center for the History and Culture of East Central
       Europe (GWZO), Leipzig, “Interregional Cultural Relations of the
       Transylvanian Armenians in the 17th and 18th Centuries”
    * Judit Pál, Babes-Bolyai-University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, “The
       Social and Economic History of the Armenians in Transylvania in the
       18th and 19th Centuries”

    Lunch Recess, 1:00-1:45 p.m.

    Session 6. Friday, 1:45-3:45 p.m.
    Between Perversion and Representation: Sexual Allegories in Armenian Literature
    Rubina Peroomian, UCLA, Chair and Discussant

    * Tamar Boyadjian, UCLA, “The Female City and Its Textual Function:
       Grigor Tghay’s Lament over the City of Jerusalem”
    * Talar Chahinian, UCLA, “The Crisis of Incest: Reconfiguring the
       Catastrophe in Orpuni’s ‘Vartsu Seniag, ‘ Sarafian’s Ishkhanuhin, and
       Shahnur’s ‘Buynuzlenere’”
    * Myrna Douzjian, UCLA, “Challenging Social and Literary Norms:
       Sexual Agency in Violet Grigorian’s Poetry”
    * Lilit Keshishyan, UCLA, “Sexual Perversion as Political Allegory in
       Gurgen Khanjian’s Hivandanots”

    Session 7. Friday, 4:00-6:00 p.m.
    New Perspectives on The Armenian Genocide
    George Shirinian, Zoryan Institute, Chair

    * Taner Akçam, Clark University, “Ottoman Documents and Genocidal
       Intent of the Union and Progress Party”
    * Janet Klein, University of Akron, “The Kurds and the Armenian
       Genocide: Reflections on Historiography”
    * Lerna Ekmekcio lu, New York University, “Approaching the Unlucky
       Sister and Her Child: Sexual Violence as a Marker during and after the
       Armenian Genocide”
    * Vahram Shemmassian, California State University-Northridge, “The
       Rescue of Captive Genocide Survivors, 1919-1921”

    Light Dinner Recess (on site), 6:00-7:00 p.m.

    Session 8. Friday, 7:00-9:00 p.m.
    Contemporary Armenia
    Hovann Simonian, University of Southern California, Chair

    * Khatchik Der Ghougassian, Universidad de San Andrés, Buenos Aires,
       “Market Fundamentalism, Economic Hardship, and Social Protest in Armenia”
    * Konrad Siekierski, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland,
       “Nation and Faith, Past and Present: The Contemporary Discourse of the
       Armenian Apostolic Church in Armenia”
    * Tamara Tonoyan, National Institute of Health, Yerevan, “HIV/AIDS in
       Armenia: Migration as a Socio-Economic and Cultural Component of
       Women’s Risk Settings”
    * Anahid Keshishian-Aramouni, UCLA, “Inknagir Magazine: Frivolous
       Iconoclasm or Marker of Artistic Liberty?”
    * Gregory Areshian, UCLA, Pavel Avetisyan and Armine Hayrapetyan,
       Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Yerevan, “Archaeology in
       Post-Soviet Armenia: New Discoveries, Problems, and Perspectives”

    Session 9. Saturday, 9:00-10:30 a.m.
    Discourse and Violence: Revisiting the Adana Massacres of 1909
    Richard Hovannisian, UCLA, Chair

    * Ohannes Kiliçdagi, Bilgi University, Istanbul, “Ottomanism among
       the Anatolian Armenians after the 1908 Revolution”
    * Bedross Der Matossian, MIT, “From Verbal to Physical Violence:
       Ihsan Fikri’s Itidal and the Massacres of Adana in 1909”
    * Rubina Peroomian, UCLA, “The Poetics of Violence in Literary
       Responses to the Adana Massacres”

    Session 10. Saturday, 10:30 a.m.12:45 p.m. The State of Armenian
    Studies Chairs and Programs in the United States Marc Mamigonian,
    NAASR, Chair (with comments on prehistory of Armenian programs)

    * Taner Akçam, Clark University
    * Kevork Bardakjian, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
    * Peter Cowe, UCLA
    * Richard Hrair Dekmejian, USC
    * Barlow Der Mugrdechian, California State University-Fresno
    * Roberta Ervine, St. Nersess Seminary
    * Richard Hovannisian, UCLA
    * Jirair Libaridian, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
    * Christina Maranci, Tufts University
    * Simon Payaslian, Boston University
    * Ara Sanjian, Armenian Research Center, UM-Dearborn
    * Vahram Shemmassian, California State University-Northridge

    Lunch Recess, 12:45-1:30 p.m.

    Session 11. Saturday, 1:30-3:00 p.m.
    Church Politics and Identity
    Abraham Terian, St. Nersess Seminary, Chair

    * Paul Werth, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, “Rumors and Projects
       of Ecclesiastical Union: Armenians, Orthodoxy, and the Problem of
       Confessional Distinctions in Imperial Russia”
    * Ara Sanjian, University of Michigan-Dearborn, “The British Foreign
       Office, the Church of England, and the Crisis in the Armenian Church
       at Antelias, 1956-1963”
    * Marlen Eordegian, Vanderbilt University, “Straddling Religion and
       Politics: The Case of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem”

    Session 12. Saturday, 3:15-5:45 p.m.
    Armenians, World War II, and Repatriation
    Barbara Merguerian, Armenian International Women’s Association, Chair

    * Vartan Matiossian, Hovnanian School, New Jersey, “‘White’
       Armenians, ‘Aryan’ Armenians: Combating Racial Views during the First
       Half of the 20th Century”
    * Gregory Aftandilian, Washington, D.C., “World War II as an Enhancer
       of Armenian-American Second Generation Identity”
    * Levon Thomassian, California State University-Northridge, “Summer of ’42”
    * Astrig Atamian, National Institute of Oriental Languages and
       Civilizations, Paris, “Being an Armenian Communist in France during
       the Cold War”
    * Sevan Yousefian, UCLA, “The Formation of Soviet Armenian
       Immigration Policy: Diaspora Networks, Armenian Cadres, and the
       Postwar Repatriation Campaign”
    * Joanne Laycock, University of Manchester, “‘Belongings’: People and
       Possessions in the Armenian Repatriations, 1947-1949”

    Concluding Comments and Discussion, 5:45-6:00 p.m.

    Architectural Exhibit by US Chapter of Armenian Architects Association

    Conference Sponsors: Society for Armenian Studies UCLA Center for Near
    Eastern Studies UCLA Center for European and Eurasian Studies USC
    Institute of Armenian Studies National Association for Armenian
    Studies and Research

    and The Armenian Studies Programs of Armenian Center, Columbia
    University Armenian Research Center, University of Michigan-Dearborn
    California State University-Fresno California State
    University-Northridge University of California, Los Angeles University
    of Michigan-Ann Arbor

    Thirty-Fifth Anniversary Banquet, Taghlyan Center 1201 N. Vine Street,
    Hollywood, California, 7:30 p.m.
    Banquet Sponsor: Armenian Educational Foundation

  • HOLLYWOOD IS “HERE” IN ARMENIA

    HOLLYWOOD IS “HERE” IN ARMENIA

    An Interview with Braden King, Writer/Director of award-winning “HERE”

    By Appo Jabarian Executive Publisher / Managing Editor

    USA Armenian Life Magazine
    Friday,  March 13, 2009
    “HERE is a landscape obsessed road movie that chronicles a brief but intense romantic relationship between an American satellite-mapping engineer and an expatriate Armenian art photographer who impulsively decide to travel into uncharted territory, both literally and metaphorically.”   This is the description provided by HERE’s writer/director Braden King. The uncharted territory, however, goes beyond the story and characters, and is an apt description of the production itself and process of bringing this movie to life as filming begins in Armenia this summer.   HERE represents an opportunity to highlight Armenia’s uniqueness on the world stage – from its rich culture and spirited people to its beautiful topography. Having already garnered awards from top festivals, notably Cannes and Sundance, the widespread positive buzz on HERE by film enthusiasts and Armenian supporters worldwide can certainly raise international awareness of Armenia’s prime location in one of the world’s most coveted regions. HERE also represents an opportunity to create an image of Armenia as a film production destination.   The potential for new commerce and industry and of increasing Armenia’s international profile is no small task, but one that the production team of HERE seems intent on taking on. However, it is clear to all involved that achieving these goals will be partly dependent on the support by Armenians worldwide. Armenians in the twin Armenian Republics – Armenia and Artsakh (Karabagh) – and the Diaspora should take both pride in and ownership of HERE.

    Recently, USA Armenian Life Magazine’s Managing Editor Appo Jabarian conducted an interview with Braden King, Writer/Director of HERE. Richard Marshalian, a member of USA Armenian Life Magazine’s Assistant Editors’ team of “Youth Forum,” contributed to this interview.

    Zoe Kevork, Executive Producer of HERE, helped make this invaluable movie project a reality. She is a dynamic source of cooperation and communication between the writer/director of this new promising movie and the Armenian communities in U.S.A.-Europe and Armenia.   Below is the text of the interview:
    USA Armenian Life: Why the title “HERE?” Braden King: In the process of developing this film I’ve been following a kind of thread. I didn’t wake up one day with a fully formed idea, knowing I wanted to make a film about a satellite mapping engineer. It was a very slow process that had to do with wanting to make a film about a feeling – specifically, the feeling of cross-country travel; journeys I had taken across the United States and around the world by car. The title is just one part of that journey, that thread that I’m still following.
    That said, it did come very early on, the word – HERE. It came at the very beginning. The different ways in which that word – married to a film that is ultimately about ideas of place, culture, geography and how we tie all of these things together – it sort of seemed like the only fitting word. I stopped thinking long ago about what it might mean or what the specifics of it were; it was simply something that seemed to represent what this film is trying to be about.
    USA Armenian Life: Are you surprised that the word “HERE” came to the forefront in your thoughts and what made you decide to adopt it?
    KING: No, I’m not surprised. It seemed organically symbolic of what I was trying to get at. I didn’t attach a specific meaning. The word was there from the very beginning. This part of the story: Years ago, before all of this was even a vague idea in my head, I was living in a big loft apartment in Chicago with a group of musicians. I remember waking up one day and just painting the word HERE on the wall in big, black, capital letters and knowing that it was the next thing that I had to explore, the next puzzle I had to solve. I didn’t know what it meant; I didn’t know what it was; I didn’t know what it symbolized. But I knew that it was the beginning of a new journey.
    USA Armenian Life: Your character, this engineer has been to many countries. Why Armenia?
    KING: The only way I can answer that question is to talk about the way that I ended up in Armenia. I was searching for the most appropriate place for the film, the most appropriate landscape and culture for the story. I thought about places like Morocco, North Africa… I traveled to countries that are further east, various “-stan” countries where a lot of these mapping projects are going on because of natural resource exploration. And then came Armenia.
    Armenia was first suggested to me by a friend, an experimental filmmaker who lives in Toronto. We were having a discussion very early on – before there was even a script – about this vague idea I had for a film about a cartographer. And this friend, she very subtly suggested that I consider Armenia as a location.
    I didn’t pay too much attention at first, but as I continued developing the project and developing the story I would come across articles buried in the back of the paper – a photo would catch my eye. And then I was doing more research – looking at landscapes, etc. – a slow obsession started to build with this country whose national symbol – Mount Ararat – was across an international border. I started finding thematic analogies for the film that existed in the actual world. These were fascinating to me. They were things I couldn’t make up. For a film that was about questioning ideas of geography, a film about questioning ideas of orientation and even mapping – coming across these things was unbelievable.
    When I finally visited in 2004, it very quickly seemed clear that there was no more appropriate place in which to set this story. Here was this culture that existed between east and west, both culturally and literally, on the map; a country whose history has been a transition point; a country with such a gorgeous and varied landscape within such a small space – a landscape that is as magnificent as anything you would see driving across 2000 miles in America.
    Armenia is also a country that is between times – ancient history in all its monasteries and religion – and it’s also on the cusp of the future. You go there now and you see all these hundreds of construction cranes and all these new technologies everywhere. In the end, Armenia became the third co-writer on the script. The country, the culture, the people allowed me to finish this story. They finished the piece for me, in a way that was breathtaking.
    USA Armenian Life: What was the hardest part of deciding on the location (Armenia) to make this movie?
    KING: There are two answers. The first, as I’ve mentioned, is that once I arrived in 2004, I saw clearly that there was no more appropriate place to make this film.
    The second is purely practical – how do you bring a western-style production – even a relatively small one – into a country with very little film infrastructure? In our case, this has posed challenges, but nothing so severe that it made me think for a second of moving the production to another country. I believe that Armenia could be a truly international film production hub – one that could sit alongside those in places like Romania. If HERE can, in some small way, help bring that idea closer to reality, I will be very pleased. The country has so much to offer cinema and the world.
    USA Armenian Life: What would you like to see an audience member go home with after watching the movie?
    KING: I’m still thinking about your previous question – about why is this movie is set in Armenia. It got me thinking a bit about an off topic thing: how this lead character – the satellite mapping engineer – ended up in Armenia.
    After couple of years of work making notes and writing about the characters, developing the characters, and thinking about the kinds of things they would do and the things that were going on in their lives it came to the point were I wanted to find “the” place before actually writing the screenplay. I couldn’t do that without a location to pin the story to – much in the same way that the satellite imaging engineer is doing his work: to pin the map to the location. We had to do the same thing for the script. In some respects, this character could be doing his work anywhere in the world. But in this story, Armenia was the only place he could be. In order to get at the themes of this story, in order to accurately reflect them, there is no other place in this world to make this film.
    In terms of what I want an audience member to experience, that’s a difficult question. Part of me doesn’t want to define that in any way. The most magical thing that can happen in any cinematic experience – or any experience with art, period – is the feeling that happens sometimes when you leave the theater or the concert or the museum and the world outside has changed a little bit.
    One thing that I have found as I’ve been working with the industry on this project – especially in the non-Armenian community – is a fascination with the Armenian landscape and culture that is sparked by the script. What has amazed me, whether it’s with the people I’ve talked to at the Sundance labs, or with people in the industry, is how often after they’ve read the script, I’ll come in and talk about the project and there is a whole secondary conversation about how after looking over this project they have gotten on the internet and Googled different parts of Armenia and looked at what the landscape looks like. Or they’ve started to read about the culture or the country’s history. I’ve been to Armenia nine times now and it’s still an amazing place with just layers and layers to penetrate and explore. To see this same reaction happening with the potential audience, even at the script stage, is amazing. It gives me great confidence that an audience can be led along that same exciting journey of discovery that I was led along.
    USA Armenian Life: How is the story different from others that have crossed international borders? KING: That’s a good question. I think you have to go back to the reasons why Armenia was the most appropriate for this type of story to answer that question.
    You have this American satellite-mapping engineer continually coming into cultures he does not understand, yet he is defining these places in a certain way.
    Then there is this woman who comes from what I consider to be one of the most richly detailed, historic and interwoven cultures I have ever experienced, a woman who has gone in the opposite direction, who has gone to Canada, who has gone to Europe to start a new life. A woman who has this very grounded culture running through her and who is dying to assimilate now after having had all of these new experiences outside. How does she fits back in? What happens to her, and to her experiences when she comes back? The combination of these two characters and the transformations that their relationship and the journey they embark upon together leads them through – that experience allows them to see themselves in ways that they couldn’t see with anyone else. It’s what makes their relationship unique.
    Traveling with this American who doesn’t have the ties to the place that she does allows this woman to get a different perspective than I think she could get in any other way. Similarly with the American – the Armenian perspective, the Armenian sense of place is a very deep and unique one that contains ties that bind generations to that land. His questioning of his solitary life and his lack of that kind of history probably couldn’t be more acute because it takes place in this particular country. So it’s about the ways in which these two people inform each other and ultimately change each other against the backdrop of this amazing place – Armenia.
    USA Armenian Life: Is there a specific message that you are trying to relate to the audience through your depiction of the two main heroes?
    KING: I would not use the word message, I would use a word like feeling. Or experience. It’s about trying to create something that allows the viewer to experience the world – their world – in a slightly different way.   USA Armenian Life: You mentioned that you visited Armenia for the first time in 2004, you talked about he landscape, and the photographs of the land, what about the people? What was the most striking characteristic that you noticed?
    KING: We could have a day-long conversation about this topic alone. Where to begin? My experiences in Armenia have been such a gift – and I mean that not only in terms of learning about the culture, but also in seeing the landscape, and in being exposed to an endless stream of amazing people. I felt I was supported, I felt I was being taken in. I still feel that. The generosity of the country, the hospitality of the country and the Armenian people is what allowed me to complete this story. It would have been impossible without Armenia. There is no one specific answer. It’s everything.
    What I found in Armenia was a landscape and culture that had such an amazing amount to give. The overwhelming sense I had about Armenia was the incredible amount of potential the country has.
    I remember being overwhelmed on my first trip because there was so much to pack into the film – so many details, so many things I wanted to get in there. I came away feeling that there needed to be a hundred films made in Armenia. A thousand films made in Armenia. There was no way I could shoulder the responsibility alone. It was just so inspiring. I came away wanting to share as much of my experience and what I had seen as I could. But I also knew that I could ultimately only be one of many. So many more stories need to be told. This is part of why we have pledged to reserve 5% of HERE’s profits to benefit young filmmakers within Armenia. So many more films need to me made.
    USA Armenian Life: How will the production of this movie affect you personally and professionally?
    KING: The process of developing the film has already been deeply affecting. I have no idea how the actual production will affect me, but I am anxious to move on to that phase of the journey. I don’t make films with these kinds of calculations in mind. I make films because I feel I have no choice; because I feel that I have been presented with something that I have to go through, to figure out. This is what led me to Armenia and to HERE.
    For additional information and updates about HERE we encourage our readers to visit the film’s website – www.herefilm.info.

  • Pressure on Obama

    Pressure on Obama

    ADAM SCHIFF                         FRANK PALLONE

    Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:36pm EDT   By Susan Cornwell

    WASHINGTON, March 11 (Reuters) – Several U.S. lawmakers have written to President Barack Obama urging him to follow up on campaign statements and label the 1915 massacre of Armenians as genocide.

    The pressure on Obama comes ahead of an expected presidential trip to Turkey, which has warned that such declarations by the United States would damage relations.

    Turkey denies that up to 1.5 million Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turks during World War One. Turkey accepts many Armenians were killed, but denies they were victims of a systematic genocide.

    Ronald Reagan was the only U.S. president to publicly call the killings genocide. Others avoided the term out of concern for the sensitivities of Turkey, an important NATO ally.

    Four members of the House of Representatives urged Obama to make a statement ahead of the 94th anniversary of the killings on April 24.

    “As a presidential candidate, you were … forthright in discussing your support for genocide recognition, saying that ‘America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides.’ We agree with you completely,” the letter said.

    It was signed by Democrats Adam Schiff of California and Frank Pallone of New Jersey, and Republicans George Radanovich of California and Mark Kirk of Illinois.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on a visit to Turkey last week, said Obama would visit “within the next month or so” in his first trip as president to a Muslim country.

    During Clinton’s visit, Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said Turkey would consider mediating between the United States and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program.

    The foreign minister also said in a recent television interview that he saw a risk that Obama would describe the Armenian deaths as genocide, because Obama had done this during his campaign. But Babacan said the United States needed to understand the sensitivities in Turkey.

    Another consideration for Obama will be that both Turkey and Armenia say they are close to normalizing relations after nearly a century of hostility.

    Other members of the administration, including Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, have in the past supported calling the Armenian killings genocide.

    Democratic aides said they also expected several lawmakers to reintroduce a resolution branding the massacre of Armenians as genocide. Armenian-Americans have been pushing for passage of similar proposals in Congress for years.

    Two years ago, a resolution was approved in committee but dropped after Turkey denounced it as “insulting” and hinted at halting logistical support for the U.S. war effort in Iraq.

  • Armenian Business Organization Joins UBCCE

    Armenian Business Organization Joins UBCCE

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Contact: Abdullah Akyuz
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Phone: 202-776-7770

    TUSIAD-US: Armenian Business Organization Joins UBCCE, a Regional Confederation Initiated by TUSIAD

    The US Office of the Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association (TUSIAD) has issued the following statement with regard to the cooperation of business associations from Turkey and Armenia as well as other countries in the region:

    “The Second General Assembly of the Union of Black Sea and Caspian Confederation of Enterprises (UBCCE) was held in Istanbul on March 2, 2009.  UBCCE is the first independent and voluntary business organization of the Black Sea and Caspian Region and was set up under the leadership of TUSIAD in 2006.

    The General Assembly approved the membership requests of the Union of Manufacturers and Businessmen of Armenia (UMBA), the Georgian Entrepreneurs Confederation (GEC), the Iraqi Businessmen Union (IBMU), the Confederation of Employers of Ukraine (CONFEU) and the Federation of Employers of Ukraine (FEU). With the admission of new organizations, the number of UBCCE members increased from 18 to 22.

    According to the decisions taken during the Second General Assembly, UBCCE Presidency also passed from TUSIAD to the Hellenic Federation of Enterprises (SEV) for the term 2009 – 2011.  The Azerbaijan Turkey Business Association (ATIB), National Economic Chamber of Kazakhstan (ATAMEKEN Union), Turkish Confederation of Employer Associations
    (TISK) and the Alliance of Romanian Employers’ Confederation (ACPR) were elected as the Vice Presidents in charge of “Regional Economic Integration”, “Business Environment Development”, “Innovation and Entrepreneurship” and “Relations with the European Union and BUSINESSEUROPE” respectively.

    During a ceremony held prior to the General Assembly, UBCCE signed a memorandum of understanding and cooperation with the International Congress of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (ICIE) and the Turkish Enterprise and Business Confederation (TURKONFED).

    For more information about UBCCE please visit www.ubcce.org.”

    About TUSIAD and TUSIAD-US

    Founded in 1971, the Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association (TUSIAD) is an independent, non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting public welfare through private enterprise.
    TUSIAD supports independent research and policy discussions on important social and economic issues in Turkey and abroad. Much like the US Business Roundtable, TUSIAD is comprised of the CEOs and Executives of the major industrial and service companies in Turkey, including those that are among global Fortune 500 companies.

    TUSIAD-US opened in November 1998 in Washington, D.C. to enhance ties between the U.S. and Turkey by representing the interests of the Turkish business community within the United States.