Category: Main Issues

  • Pro-Turkish US lawmaker Murtha dies at age of 77

    Pro-Turkish US lawmaker Murtha dies at age of 77

    John Murtha

    John Murtha, an influential Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives and a staunch supporter of the U.S.-Turkish cooperation, died Monday night at the age of 77.

    A former Marine officer, the Pennsylvania Democrat played a crucial role in 2007 in preventing passage of an Armenian “genocide” bill in the House of Representatives, which was a major threat to U.S.-Turkish ties at the time. He was also a prominent critic of former President George W. Bush’s Iraq policies. Murtha died at a hospital in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania after suffering complications from gallbladder surgery, wire services reported.

    The fall of 2007 was one of the toughest times in the history of the decades-long U.S.-Turkish relationship. On one front, militants from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, were attacking Turkish targets and killing dozens of soldiers. Ankara warned that it would send its army to neighboring northern Iraq to fight the PKK there unless the United States moved to radically increase anti-PKK cooperation.

    On the other front, an Armenian “genocide” resolution had passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee and come very close to a House floor vote. Ankara warned that the bill’s passage would lead to a major and lasting deterioration of ties, including a move to cut Turkish cooperation in Iraq.

    Bush’s Republican administration already had urged Republican representatives to keep away from backing the “genocide” bill, and the effort was largely successful. But a vast majority of Democrats, who were in control of the House, supported the resolution.

    Game changing remarks

    On Oct. 17, 2007, when backers of the “genocide” resolution seemed to have more than enough votes for the bill’s passage, Murtha appeared for a news conference at the House press gallery together with a handful of other Democratic lawmakers. The event was a game changer.

    “What happened nearly 100 years ago was terrible. I don’t know whether it was a massacre or a genocide, but that is beside the point. The point is we have to deal with today’s world. Until we can stop the war in Iraq, I believe it is imperative to ensure continued access to military installations in Turkey, which serve U.S. operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan,” Murtha said.

    “I met with Turkish President Abdullah Gül and foreign policy experts, and they all impressed upon me that a U.S. resolution will further fuel anti-Americanism among the Turkish population and will in turn pressure the Turkish government to distance itself from the United States in the region,” he said.

    “I am also concerned about the recent developments regarding possible Turkish military action against the PKK in northern Iraq. This resolution could very well increase political pressure in Turkey and force the government to take such military action,” Murtha said.

    Then he predicted that the floor vote on the genocide bill would fail, with some 55 to 60 Democrats in the 435-member House opposing the measure.

    Murtha’s speech had a domino effect on Democratic lawmakers with dozens of representatives withdrawing their support from the resolution. As a result, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a staunch supporter of the “genocide” bill, had to shelve a floor vote indefinitely. And a collapse in U.S.-Turkish ties was narrowly averted.

    “Murtha was a great statesman fully aware of the importance of the Turkish-U.S. alliance,” said one senior Turkish diplomat. “We will miss him dearly.”

    Changing course in Iraq

    Murtha’s Iraq war views also eventually prompted Washington to change course in the war, eventually forcing a decision to withdraw forces in 2011.

    Murtha originally voted in 2002 to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq, but his growing frustration over the administration’s handling of the war prompted him in November 2005 to call for an immediate withdrawal of troops. “The war in Iraq is not going as advertised,” he said. “It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.”

    Murtha’s opposition to the Iraq war rattled Washington, where he enjoyed bipartisan respect for his work on military issues. On Capitol Hill, he was seen as speaking for those in uniform when it came to military matters.

    ————————————————

    The New Republic: Will Murtha’s Town Die With Him?

    by Jason Zengerle

    Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha has died. Is his district next?

    text sizeAAA

    February 9, 2010

    By last summer, it was obvious that John Murtha did not have much time left in Congress. This was partly due to the efforts of Washington ethics cops and Western Pennsylvania Republicans, both of whom had spent the past few years working feverishly, through either judicial or electoral means, to remove him from office. But more than that, there was the simple matter of Murtha’s health. At 77 years old, he’d begun to show obvious signs of deterioration—from increasingly frequent verbal gaffes (like calling his part of Pennsylvania “a racist area”) to physical ones, such as the spill he took while visiting injured troops at Walter Reed. When Murtha died Monday at the age of 77, due to complications stemming from gallbladder surgery, it was sad, but hardly shocking, news.

    Unless, that is, you lived in Murtha’s hometown of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. When I visited there last summer, I found that the only thing deeper than the floodwaters that had thrice destroyed the rust belt city was the denial of its residents that Murtha’s 36 years on Capitol Hill were nearing an end. They expressed unswerving confidence that their congressman could not only defy the laws of man—by forever frustrating the efforts of those trying to unseat him—but the laws of nature, as well. The notion that he might have to retire due to poor health was greeted with a snort: Murtha had been a Marine who, as a father of three, had volunteered for Vietnam; he was too tough to retire. “He would like to die in the House,” one of his friends and supporters told me, certain that such an event was a long way off. Murtha’s great aunt, more than one person in Johnstown mentioned to me, had lived into her 90s; and his clean living—“he doesn’t drink, except for coffee”—meant he could count on reaching a similarly ripe old age.

    Now that Murtha has confounded the expectations of his constituents, his obituary writers will invariably describe him as “The King of Pork.” While the term is not meant as a compliment — and, in fact, Murtha’s political and legal troubles over the last few years stemmed from that well-deserved reputation — it’s worth remembering that, to the recipients of that pork, Murtha was a hero. For the last 15 years, he steered a steady stream of federal money — by some accounts as much as $2 billion — to Johnstown and, in the process, allowed the city to escape the fate of other once-booming steel towns that were unable to survive the collapse of that industry. Indeed, to visit Johnstown today is to encounter an oasis of relative prosperity — a city that boasts glass-and-steel office buildings, a Wine Spectator-award winning restaurant, even a symphony orchestra — in a desert of economic despair.

    When any politician dies, especially one as long-serving as Murtha, his passing will be treated as the passing of more than an individual. And this is already being described as the end of various eras — from the end of the era of Democratic rule in Pennsylvania’s Twelfth Congressional District (which John McCain carried in 2008) to the end of the era of the “old bull” way of doing business on Capitol Hill. But Murtha’s death also signals something more than the death of a man or the death of an era: It likely spells the death of the city he represented.

    When Murtha was alive, Johnstown raised myriad monuments to him — placing his name on everything from a technology park to an airport. But the city never prepared itself for the day when its honors to Murtha would have to come in the form of memorials. Johnstown’s success was not a façade, but its prosperity was as dependent on one congressman as it had once been on one industry. It was almost as if Johnstown could not bring itself to imagine — and thus prepare for — what would happen once Murtha, like steel before him, was no longer there to sustain it. And now it will face the consequences of that failure.

    To be sure, Johnstown will not cease to exist tomorrow. Or next week. Or even next year. After all, it took decades for Bethlehem Steel to dismantle its Johnstown operations once it decided to leave the city. But, over time, the economic forces that Murtha managed to stave off will begin to take their toll. Lacking a politician with Murtha’s seniority and powerful committee assignments — not to mention, perhaps, a politician with Murtha’s tolerance for the appearance (and perhaps the reality) of ethical impropriety — Johnstown will watch as the river of federal largesse slows to a trickle. And it will watch as the defense contractors that followed those federal dollars by locating their offices in Johnstown and underwriting its civic activities turn their attentions to the hometowns of other congressmen. And slowly, but ineluctably, Johnstown will meet the same fate as the politician who did so much — maybe too much — to keep it alive.

    Partner content from:

  • Sargsyan Urges Gül to ‘Make a Big Step Forward’

    Sargsyan Urges Gül to ‘Make a Big Step Forward’

    Tuesday, 09 February 2010

    Tert.am — RA President Serzh Sargsyan sent a formal letter to his Turkish counterpart, Abdullah Gül. The letter reads as follows:

    “Your Excellency,

    “Travelling over Turkey’s air territory, I am sending my greetings to you and people of neighbouring Turkey.

    “Our initiative to normalize Armenian-Turkish relations is at the centre of the international community’s attention. This period is, in fact, a historical one, and not only we, but also the whole world understands that. The efforts made by regional powers for the improvement of bilateral relations go beyond any appreciation. I am sure that it would be hard to see progress without their intervention.

    “At the same time, I believe that despite the extent friendly states are interested in a positive outcome for the [normalization] process, they will not be able to do what our two nations can do.

    “Mr. President,

    “I think you will agree that the main role of breaking stereotypes that Armenian and Turkish people have toward each other and establishing an atmosphere of mutual trust is reserved for authorities. It was only due to faith in our work, and being resolute and principled that we can achieve results.

    “Otherwise, when talk and actions contradict each other, it brings about distrust and skepticism, opening up a wide [playing] field for those who are against this process. We should comprehend that time, in this case, does not contribute to the process but rather deprives it of meaning.

    “If we have, up till now, succeeded in bringing our bilateral contact to such a level where the vision of building normal relations between our countries becomes more visible and tangible, then today it is high time to be decisive, [and] to make a big step forward, passing on a stable and secure region for generations to come.

    “Your Excellency, please accept my deepest respects.”

  • “Oh, what a tangled web we weave,

    “Oh, what a tangled web we weave,

    When first we practice to deceive!”

    [[email protected]]

    Publisher, The California Courier

    sassounian31

    The title of this article, taken from Walter Scott’s epic poem, the Marmion, aptly describes the web of deceit weaved by Turkey’s leaders in seeking to create the false impression of wanting to normalize relations with Armenia.

    Under the guise of opening the border and establishing diplomatic relations with Armenia, Turkish officials actually intended to: 1) extract concessions from Armenia – returning Karabagh (Artsakh) to Azerbaijan, forming a historical commission to review the facts of the Genocide, and blocking territorial demands from Turkey; 2) prevent the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by third countries, particularly the United States; and 3) generate a positive image in order to facilitate Turkey’s entry into the European Union.

    If Turkey was sincere in its expressed desire to open the border with Armenia, it could have done so just as easily and quickly as it did when closing it in 1993. There was no need for lengthy negotiations, convoluted protocols, and parliamentary ratification. Furthermore, rather than demanding concessions, Turks should have offered inducements to Armenia for agreeing to open the border, because with closed borders, Turkey cannot join the EU.

    Ever since April 22, 2009, when the first concrete step was taken by the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Turkey by issuing a roadmap for normalizing their relations, Turkish leaders continued to state that they won’t open the border with Armenia without first resolving the Artsakh conflict. Even after signing the Protocols on October 10, 2009 and submitting them to Parliament eleven days later, the Turkish government still insisted that the border would remain closed until Artsakh was returned to Azerbaijan.

    Since none of the major powers supported the precondition on Artsakh, Turkey’s leaders used the January 12, 2010 verdict of Armenia’s Constitutional Court as a new excuse for not ratifying the Protocols in the last four months. Even though the Court ruled that the obligations stipulated by the Protocols complied with the constitution, the Ankara leadership expressed dissatisfaction in order to cover up its intent not to ratify the Protocols. Turkey demanded that the Court “correct” its decision, just because it had blocked the unwarranted interpretations and preconditions of the Turkish side.

    Unable to convince Armenia to meet their demands, Turkish officials approached Russia, the United States, and Switzerland (the mediator on the Protocols) to apply pressure on Armenia “to correct” the Constitutional Court’s decision. Once again, the Turks were rebuffed.

    Last week, Turkey stumbled on a new excuse not to ratify the Protocols — the announcement by Cong. Howard Berman (Dem.-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, that his panel would take up the Armenian Genocide resolution on March 4.

    Even though the genocide resolution is unrelated to the Protocols, a few days before Cong. Berman’s announcement, Turkey’s new Ambassador to Washington, Namik Tan, warned the U.S. Congress against such a move and boldly predicted that such a resolution would not come up for a vote “this year or anytime in the future.” Amb. Tan’s warning clearly exposed Turkey’s hidden agenda to bury the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide at every opportunity.

    Now that the genocide resolution is scheduled for a vote, what would the Turks do? They are caught in their own web of deceit! If they rush to ratify the Protocols in order to prevent the adoption of the resolution, they would antagonize their Azeri ally and create internal political turmoil. On the other hand, If they does not ratify the Protocols very soon, there is a high probability that the genocide resolution would receive congressional approval this year.

    Meanwhile, Washington is losing patience with Turkey’s repeated excuses for dragging its feet on the Protocols. In retaliation, the Obama administration could use the genocide resolution as a stick to prod Turkey into ratifying the Protocols. Moreover, Turkey cannot count on much political support from Israel or American-Jewish organizations in order to block the genocide resolution, due to the incessant insults hurled by Prime Minister Erdogan at Israeli leaders over the past year.

    By refusing to ratify the Protocols, Turkey has taken away from the Obama administration its excuse for not acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. Despite his repeated campaign promises, Pres. Obama refrained from using the term Armenian Genocide in his April 24, 2009 statement. He had unwisely adopted the duplicitous Turkish line that third countries should not acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, while Armenia and Turkey were trying to normalize their relations.

    It is noteworthy that when Philip Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State, was asked last week to comment on the likely impact of the Armenian Genocide resolution on the Protocols, he insisted that they be ratified without preconditions. Significantly, he did not use the occasion to express any opposition to the resolution.

    Any attempt by the administration to block the congressional resolution would be highly embarrassing for Pres. Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, since all three as Senators and presidential candidates had issued strong statements in support of acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.

    Since Obama administration officials have repeatedly stated that the Protocols have no preconditions, then there should be no reason for them to object to the adoption of the genocide resolution.

    It should be stated that in normal circumstances there would be no need for further action by the President or Congress on recognition of the Armenian Genocide which is already an acknowledged fact. In 1975 and 1984, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted resolutions recognizing the Genocide and Pres. Reagan acknowledged it in his Presidential Proclamation of 1981. However, in view of Turkey’s devious designs to roll back the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, it is imperative that the United States government reaffirm its acknowledgment. This would also be an appropriate response to the deceptive Turkish tactics of using the Protocols to extract concessions, under the false pretense of opening the border with Armenia.

  • U.S. House Panel To Take Up Armenian Genocide Bill

    U.S. House Panel To Take Up Armenian Genocide Bill

    4DC6B146 E6BD 4F1D BE80 EA7C55710985 mw270 sCongressman Howard Berman (right)

    February 06, 2010
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) — A U.S. congressional panel will vote next month on a resolution to label the World War I-era massacre of Armenians by Turkish forces as “genocide,” a move that could infuriate Turkey.

    Howard Berman, the Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he intended to call a committee vote on the nonbinding resolution on March 4.

    The resolution would call on President Barack Obama to ensure that U.S. policy formally refers to the massacre as “genocide” and to use that term when he delivers his annual message on the issue in April — something Obama avoided doing last year.

    The panel approved a similar bill in 2007, but it was never put to a full House vote amid fears among both Democrats and Republicans that it would alienate Turkey.

    The Obama administration sees Turkey as a key ally whose help it needs to solve confrontations from Iran to Afghanistan.

    Obama, who as a candidate referred to the killings as genocide, in April used the term “atrocities” in his first presidential address on the issue — spurring criticism from Armenian-American groups.

    Turkey and Armenia last year signed accords to normalize ties after a century of hostility that traces its roots to the 1915 mass killing and deportation of Armenians.

    But the deal has wobbled after an Armenian court last month reaffirmed the government’s obligation to seek recognition of the killings as genocide, something Turkey strongly opposes.

    Turkey accepts that many Christian Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks but denies that up to 1.5 million died and that it amounts to genocide. Turkish officials have warned that any new attempt in the U.S. Congress to brand the killings a genocide could damage U.S.-Turkish ties.

  • Armenia and Turkey: The truce in need of a rescue

    Armenia and Turkey: The truce in need of a rescue

    Opinion


    They have a chance to make peace over their troubled past and move forward — or balk and leave themselves, and their region, worse off than before.

    By Henri J. Barkey and Thomas de Waal
    February 5, 2010

    For a while, it looked like the start of a great reconciliation. Armenia and Turkey have lived beneath the vast shadow of the mass murder of Armenians in eastern Turkey during World War I, and to this day they maintain no diplomatic ties. But in October, the Armenian and Turkish foreign ministers met in Switzerland and signed two protocols to set up relations, open their common border — closed since 1993 — and begin addressing the painful disputes that divide them. Each nation’s governments must still ratify the agreements. The United States, with its large Armenian American community and strategic alliance with Turkey, threw its weight behind the deal.

    But this great truce is already in need of a rescue, and if it breaks down, we will end up in a worse place than where we started. In January, Turkey showed signs of having cold feet. Its foreign ministry objected to a judgment by the Armenian constitutional court supporting the protocols on the grounds that they are consistent with the founding principles of the state, which commit it to pursuing recognition of the 1915 killings as genocide.

    The endorsement of the court, which the U.S. government welcomed, actually opens the way for the Armenian parliament to ratify the protocols. Turkey’s move was a fairly transparent device to put the brakes on the process.

    Why is Turkey trying to backtrack? Its government agreed to the protocols, in part because it wanted to prevent the U.S. administration and Congress from passing a resolution describing the Armenian massacres as genocide. But Ankara was surprised by the vehemence of the opposition the deal generated both at home and in its ally, Azerbaijan, which lost a conflict with the Armenians over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh in the early 1990s.

    The text of the protocols does not explicitly mention Nagorno-Karabakh, but the dispute looms large in the background. Turkey originally shut the border with Armenia in 1993; the Armenians captured an Azerbaijani province during the Nagorno-Karabakh war. When the accord was signed last year, the Turks hoped that there would be a breakthrough in the peace talks over the conflict, but that hope is fading. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has boxed himself in by proclaiming that the protocols will not be implemented until Armenia withdraws from occupied Azerbaijani territory.

    A rapprochement would be good news for Armenia, which would see its main border to the West opened and an end to years of regional isolation. Yet Armenian President Serge Sarkisian also faces unexpectedly strong opposition. In the diaspora, there are loud complaints that the provisions to confirm the existing Armenian-Turkish border and set up a joint historians’ commission on the massacres relieve pressure on Ankara to own up to the Armenian genocide.

    Yet the world would never tolerate a redrawing of Turkey’s borders — even Josef Stalin failed to accomplish that in the flush of victory over the Nazis in 1945 — and the Turkish government is unlikely to recognize the Armenian genocide with a gun pressed to its head. Turkey’s own growing internal debate about the crimes of 1915 is a much surer road to their eventual acknowledgment than political lobbying from abroad.

    On the Armenian side, it would be political suicide for Sarkisian to make a major concession over Nagorno-Karabakh — such as a unilateral withdrawal from occupied Azerbaijani land. Yet it is not unreasonable for the Turks to expect some progress. After all, they closed the Armenian border in solidarity with their Azerbaijani brethren, who would be furious if it were reopened without any move forward on the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. At the very least, Azerbaijan could retaliate by charging the Turks higher gas prices and favoring Russian export routes over the Nabucco gas pipeline projected to traverse Turkey en route to Europe.

    Allowing these protocols to fail would unleash a destructive chain of events. An aggrieved U.S. Congress might press ahead with a genocide resolution, a move that would provoke a strong anti-American backlash in Turkey. The already faltering peace process over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict — the major issue impeding peaceful development in the South Caucasus — would be hit hard, and calls for war could resume in Azerbaijan.

    But Armenia can take smaller steps to break the deadlock. Owing to the geography of this region, everyone suffers. Azerbaijan also has an isolated territory that suffers economically — the exclave of Nakhichevan, separated from the rest of Azerbaijan by an unfriendly Armenia, its road and rail links severed. As a gesture of goodwill, the Yerevan government could take steps to ease the blockade of Nakhichevan in parallel with the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border. The Armenians could also begin work on rehabilitating the long-defunct railway line that once connected Azerbaijan, Armenia, Nakhichevan and Turkey. It is a sad symbol of the closed borders and suspicions that cripple this region, but one day it could be a major east-west transport route. The Turks would be wise to hail such an initiative as a success and move on with ratifying the protocols.

    More broadly, better relations with Armenia offer Turkey a chance to lift the burden of history from its shoulders. Turkey’s ambitious foreign policy, with its goal of “zero problems with its neighbors” and becoming the central power in its region, will come to nothing if its enmity with Armenia endures. Tiny Armenia may be dwarfed by Turkey’s size and clout, but it can lay claim to a moral imperative.

    Henri J. Barkey is a professor of international relations at Lehigh University and a visiting senior scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where Thomas de Waal is a senior associate on the Caucasus.

    Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

  • Those Who Continued Living in Turkey

    Those Who Continued Living in Turkey

    ‘Those Who Continued Living in Turkey’ at ACF

    On Sun., Feb. 14, Dr. Rubina Peroomian will present a lecture titled “And Those Who Continued Living in Turkey after 1915” at the Armenian Cultural Foundation (ACF) in Arlington, Mass. The event is organized by the Boston Chapter of the Hamazkayin Armenian Educational and Cultural Society.

    The recent political developments in the world have created a new atmosphere whereby the events of 1915 and the plight of the Armenian survivors in Turkey, be they Christian, Islamized, or hidden, have been espoused and fictionalized in the literature of Turkey. Artistic expressions echo the continuing trauma in the life of these “rejects of the sword,” a Turkish moniker for Armenians, having “undeservedly” escaped from death. The stories that Turkish writers unearth and the daring memoirs of Turkish citizens with an Armenian in their ancestry, as well as obscured references to these same stories and events in Turkish-Armenian literature, have unveiled the full picture of survival, with an everlasting memory of the lost ones, but also of forced conversions, of nurturing the “enemy” in the bosom, and of the dehumanization and sexual torture of men and women.

    A multifaceted image, an identity, of what is broadly generalized as Turkish-Armenian, thus emerges—a phenomenon that contradicts the long-researched and explored concept of the Diasporan Armenian post-genocide ethnic identity. Nevertheless, the sociopolitical and religious impositions and the hegemony of Muslim identity have not yet been fully challenged. External pressures may influence the metamorphosis of the Turkish state, but the real change should come from within the Turkish society. That change may be underway. Peroomian’s recent book And Those Who Continued Living in Turkey After 1915 addresses the issues of the psychology of the survivors of the Armenian Genocide who remained in Turkey, their lifestyle after the tragedy, and the struggle to preserve their identity. What happened to the women and the children who were kidnapped during the massacre? What happened to those Armenians who were forced to adopt Islam? How does the Armenian community of Istanbul live, and what does it do to preserve its Armenian identity?

    Peroomian, a lecturer of Armenian language and literature, is currently a research associate at UCLA. She is the author of several books, textbooks, chapters in books, and research articles in scholarly journals on Armenians and the Armenian Genocide. Her major publications include Literary Responses to Catastrophe: A Comparison of the Armenian and the Jewish Experience (1993); Armenia in the Sphere of Relations between the Armenian Revolutionary Federation and the Bolsheviks, 1917-1921 (1997) in the Armenian language (translated and published in Russian); The Armenian Question, a series of textbooks in Armenian for grades 10-12 (1990-99); and a comprehensive textbook of the History of the Armenian Question for high schools in Armenia (2000). And Those Who Continued Living in Turkey after 1915 (2008) is her most recent publication. Peroomian has lectured widely and has participated in several international symposia. She received a Lifetime Achievement Award by the Armenian Educational Foundation and the Mesrob Mashtots Medal with an encyclical by His Holiness Aram I Catholicos of Cilicia.

    The lecture begins at 4 p.m., and is free and open to the public. The Armenian Cultural Foundation is located on 441 Mystic St. in Arlington. For more information, call (617) 924-8849 or email [email protected].

    ***

    Hamazkayin-Boston aims to uphold the ethnic identity and cultural heritage of the Armenian community in the Greater Boston Area by cultivating and promoting local, national, and international Armenian arts; celebrating important educational and cultural milestones in our history; and engaging the youth and young professionals in educational and cultural issues of importance to the Armenian community, thereby cultivating the next generation of local and national community leaders.

    Hamazkayin-Boston holds bi-weekly meetings on Monday evening at the Hamasdegh Library, located on the second floor of the Armenian Educational and Cultural Center (ACEC) on 47 Nichols Ave. in Watertown. Their meetings are open to all who would like to help promote our cultural treasures. For more information, visit or email [email protected].

    Peroomian to Lecture on ‘Those Who Continued Living in Turkey’ at ACF (Date/Time Update)

    ——————-

    Artist: Varteni

    Category: Painter
    Profile: Varteni was born in Istanbul on june 24, 1953 to an Armenian family. Her schoolings, first at the Armenian grade school then at the Austrian Sankt Georg Gymnasium, significantly contributed to her early development. She arrived in Boston, MA at age 16, attended Lynn Classical High, enrolled at Cal Arts in Los Angeles and in 1979 received her BFA from the University of Central Florida (UCF). Her biography has been published in the Who is Who of American Women 1999.
    More information: Please visit www.varteni.com to view a sampling of Varteni’s works.