Category: Main Issues

  • YouTube video, Kevork Yazedjian,

    YouTube video, Kevork Yazedjian,

    HISTORIAN, Kevork Yazedjian,

    A Prominent Member of AGBU

    Blasts Top Leadership’s

    Cowardly Position on The Anti-Armenian Protocols

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

  • Mouradian: Araxie’s Journey

    Mouradian: Araxie’s Journey

    By Khatchig Mouradian • on September 28, 2009 •

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I learned her name: Araxie.

    ***

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ***

    Bones…

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

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

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

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

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

  • In Pursuit of Justice and True Friendship

    In Pursuit of Justice and True Friendship

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

  • 10 Major Concerns Regarding Armenia-Turkey Protocols

    10 Major Concerns Regarding Armenia-Turkey Protocols







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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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







  • Does Andranik Mihranyan Take His Cue From Pro-Turkey Neocons?

    Does Andranik Mihranyan Take His Cue From Pro-Turkey Neocons?

    DIASPORA’S MOST WIDELY ACCLAIMED & CIRCULATED

    INDEPENDENT ARMENIAN WEEKLY
    Issue #1174 October 7, 2009


    By Appo Jabarian
    Executive Publisher / Managing Editor
    USA Armenian Life Magazine

    Friday,  September 25, 2009

    appo

    In a September 19 article in Azg Daily of Armenia, Hasmik Harutunyan reported Mihranyan as saying that “The Genocide and the issue of Armenian-Turkish relations are a rotten nail in the head of the Armenian people.” Harutunyan then goes on listing Mihranyan’s diatribes about the worldwide Armenian activists that are opposed to the Armenia-Turkey Protocols.

    Long-established is the fact that Mihranyan is a devoted apologist of failed presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrossyan’s damaging foreign policy during the latter’s tenure as President until his resignation in February 1998. Ter-Petrossyan fell from grace and lost his mandate because he officially toyed with the idea of surrendering major chunks of newly liberated Armenian territories of Artsakh to Azerbaijan, and of outright handing over Meghri, Armenia to Baku.

    Apparently, Mihranyan has either forgotten or refuses to recognize the fact that Ter-Petrossyan’s self-defeating policies and ideas caused him the loss of power. And now, he is eager to liken Ter-Petrossyan to the current President, thus giving Pres. Sargsyan a suffocating political bear hug by attempting to misguide Pres. Sargsyan into the newest Turkish trap by sugar-coating the content of the grossly unfair and unjust preconditions imposed by Turkey?

    Mihranyan has also characterized Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian as a veteran diplomat who is widely criticized for having initialed the Protocols.

    How can anyone forget the fact that Mihranyan is one of the individuals who attempted to promote the defrauding “Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission” in early 2000? Thanks to a worldwide outcry by Armenians in Armenia, Artsakh and the Diaspora, TARC was derailed.

    How can a clear-thinking Armenian ever accept Mihranyan’s false notion that the signing of the Protocols will constitute a victory for Armenia and its worldwide Diaspora and their Cause?

    According to Azg Daily, Mihranyan went on to criticize former Pres. Kocharian for not giving in to the Washington-based neocons, alleging that Kocharian “lost” a historic opportunity in Key West, Florida in April 2001 on settling the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict with Azerbaijan. But in reality, to his credit, Kocharian refused to give into the pressures applied on him by the neocons to “return” Artsakh to Azerbaijan.

    I hope Mihranyan remembers that he was an active member of the same Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission which produced the conclusion of a 3rd party report that TARC had commissioned on “whether the actions of the Ottoman authorities constituted genocide.” The conclusion of the International Center for Transitional Justice report was that yes, it did.

    So, how can Mihranyan convince the Armenians to accept the current Protocols agreement which calls for the establishment of a joint commission between Armenia and Turkey to find out “whether the actions of the Ottoman authorities constituted genocide.”

    Contrary to TARC I members’ repeated assurances that it has terminated its activities, it apparently was kept alive, well, and plotting in the “comfort” of total darkness.

    In TARC II’s days in 2004, it was TARC I all over again. Now it’s all too clear that neither TARC I nor TARC II ever vanished into oblivion and somehow continued to join forces with Ankara in order to produce the current Protocols.

    Finally, one wonders if Mihranyan takes his cues from pro-Turkey neocons in Washington and elsewhere?

  • Armenian DIASPORA horrified by treaty with Turkey

    Armenian DIASPORA horrified by treaty with Turkey

    Robert Fisk: Genocide forgotten: Armenians horrified by treaty with Turkey
    A new trade deal is set to gloss over the murder of 1.5 million people
    In the autumn of 1915, an Austrian engineer called Litzmayer, who was helping build the Constantinople-Baghdad railway, saw what he thought was a large Turkish army heading for Mesopotamia. But as the crowd came closer, he realised it was a huge caravan of women, moving forward under the supervision of soldiers.
    The 40,000 or so women were all Armenians, separated from their men – most of whom had already had their throats cut by Turkish gendarmerie – and deported on a genocidal death march during which up to 1.5 million Armenians died.
    Subjected to constant rape and beatings, some had already swallowed poison on their way from their homes in Erzerum, Serena, Sivas, Bitlis and other cities in Turkish western Armenia. “Some of them,” Bishop Grigoris Balakian, one of Litzmayer’s contemporaries, recorded, “had been driven to such a state that they were mere skeletons enveloped in rags, with skin that had turned leathery, burned from the sun, cold, and wind. Many pregnant women, having become numb, had left their newborns on the side of the road as a protest against mankind and God.” Every year, new evidence emerges about this mass ethnic cleansing, the first holocaust of the last century; and every year, Turkey denies that it ever committed genocide. Yet on Saturday – to the horror of millions of descendants of Armenian survivors – the President of Armenia, Serg Sarkissian, plans to agree to a protocol with Turkey to re-open diplomatic relations, which should allow for new trade concessions and oil interests. And he proposes to do this without honouring his most important promise to Armenians abroad – to demand that Turkey admit it carried out the Armenian genocide in 1915.
    In Beirut yesterday, outside Mr Sarkissian’s hotel, thousands of Armenians protested against this trade-for-denial treaty. “We will not forget,” their banners read. “Armenian history is not for sale.” They called the President a traitor. “Why should our million and a half martyrs be put up for sale?” one of them asked. “And what about our Armenian lands in Turkey, the homes our grandparents left behind? Sarkissian is selling them too.”
    The sad truth is that the 5.7 million Armenian diaspora, scattered across Russia, the US, France, Lebanon and many other countries, are the descendants of the western Armenians who bore the brunt of Turkish Ottoman brutality in 1915.
    Tiny, landlocked, modern-day Armenia – its population a mere 3.2 million, living in what was once called eastern Armenia – is poor, flaunts a dubious version of democracy and is deeply corrupt. It relies on remittances from its wealthier cousins overseas; hence Mr Sarkissian’s hopeless mission to New York, Los Angeles, Paris, Beirut and Rostov-on-Don to persuade them to support the treaty, to be signed by the Armenian and Turkish Foreign Ministers in Switzerland.
    The Turks have also been trumpeting a possible settlement to the territory of Nagorno-Karabagh, part of historic Armenia seized from Azerbaijan by Armenian militias almost two decades ago – not without a little ethnic cleansing by Armenians, it should be added. But it is the refusal of the Yerevan government to make Turkey’s acknowledgement of the genocide a condition of talks that has infuriated the diaspora.
    “The Armenian government is trying to sweeten the taste for us by suggesting that Turkish and Armenian historians sit down to decide what happened in 1915,” one of the Armenians protesting in Beirut said.
    “But would the Israelis maintain diplomatic relations if the German government suddenly called the Jewish Holocaust into question and suggested it all be mulled over by historians?”
    Betrayal has always been in the air. Barack Obama was the third successive US President to promise Armenian electors that he would acknowledge the genocide if he won office – and then to betray them, once elected, by refusing even to use the word. Despite thunderous denunciations in the aftermath of the Armenian genocide by Lloyd George and Churchill – the first British politician to call it a holocaust – the Foreign Office also now meekly claims that the “details” of the 1915 massacres are still in question. Yet still the evidence comes in, even from this newspaper’s readers. In a letter to me, an Australian, Robert Davidson, said his grandfather, John “Jock” Davidson, a First World War veteran of the Australian Light Horse, had witnessed the Armenian genocide: “He wrote of the hundreds of Armenian carcasses outside the walls of Homs. They were men, women and children and were all naked and had been left to rot or be devoured by dogs.
    “The Australian Light Horsemen were appalled at the brutality done to these people. In another instance his company came upon an Armenian woman and two children in skeletal condition. She signed to them that the Turks had cut the throats of her husband and two elder children.”
    In his new book on Bishop Balakian, Armenian Golgotha, the historian Peter Balakian (the bishop’s great-nephew) records how British soldiers who had surrendered to the Turks at Kut al-Amara in present-day Iraq and were sent on their own death march north – of 13,000 British and Indian soldiers, only 1,600 would survive – had spoken of frightful scenes of Armenian carnage near Deir ez-Zour, not far from Homs in Syria. “In those vast deserts,” the Bishop said, “they had come upon piles of human bones, crushed skulls, and skeletons stretched out everywhere, and heaps of skeletons of murdered children.”
    When the foreign ministers sit down to sign their protocol in Switzerland on Saturday, they must hope that blood does not run out of their pens.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-genocide-forgotten-armenians-horrified-by-treaty-with-turkey-1799302.html

    __._,_.___