Category: Main Issues

  • Role of gender in Armenian Genocide topic of Istanbul conference

    Role of gender in Armenian Genocide topic of Istanbul conference

    From left: Arlene Avakian, Doris Melkonian, Anna Aleksanyan, Hourig Attarian, and Ay?e Gül Alt?nay.

    Sabanci Conference

    Istanbul, Turkey – The “Gendered Memories of War and Political Violence” international conference in Istanbul, Turkey, featured a panel devoted to the Armenian Genocide, titled “Gendering the Armenian Genocide.”

    The May 22-23 conference was organized by Prof. Ay?e Gül Alt?nay of Sabanci University and Prof. Andrea Petö of Central European University as a joint academic initiative between their two universities.

    Over 40 academics from around the world (Australia, Israel, Poland, Great Britain, Bulgaria, Finland, Netherlands, Greece, Canada, United States, and Armenia) gathered in Istanbul to present their latest research findings on women’s memories of war and political violence. Papers examined genocides and political violence in Cambodia, Vietnam, Congo, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Serbia, Israel-Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Turkey.

    Keynote speaker, Prof. Cynthia Enloe of Clark University, set the tone for the conference, posing the question, “Which wartime women are remembered in post-wartime and which forgotten?” Enloe underscored the importance of paying tribute to women’s memories of political conflict, recognizing that stories remain untold as women live their lives in post-conflict silence.

    As Doris Melkonian of the University of California, Los Angeles said during her presentation, quoting Professor Kamala Visweswaran, “If we do not know how to hear silence, we will be unable to understand what is being said.”

    The conference papers were grouped into nine panels which included: “Gendered Memories of War in Literature and the Arts”; “Women’s Narratives of War and Soldiering”; “Sexual Violence: Silence, Narration, Resistance”; “Gender, Sexual Violence and International Law”; “Gendering the Armenian Genocide”; and “Reflecting on Feminist Memory Work.”

    The panel devoted to the Armenian Genocide consisted of (in order of presentation): Doris Melkonian (United States), Anna Aleksanyan (Armenia), Hourig Attarian (Canada), and Ay?e Gül Alt?nay (Turkey), with Arlene Avakian (United States) serving as discussant.

    Doris Melkonian (doctoral student at UCLA) presented a paper co-authored with her sister Arda Melkonian (doctoral student at UCLA) titled “Armenian Women and Men Narrating Sexual Violence During the Armenian Genocide.” Drawing upon the UCLA Collection of Armenian Genocide Survivor Memoirs, Melkonian analyzed gender differences in survivors’ use of language when retelling stories of rape and sexual violence. Melkonian’s close reading of the narratives underscores the importance of not only analyzing language but also paying close attention to the silences. While rape was a common occurrence during the Armenian Genocide, very little scholarly research has been conducted on this topic. Through their research, the Melkonians strive to fill this void.

    Anna Aleksanyan (researcher at the Armenian Genocide Museum Institute in Yerevan) presented the complex post-Genocide situation of Armenian women who had converted to Islam. Her paper, “The Gender Issue: The Dilemma of Re-Armenianization of Armenian Women after the Genocide” dealt with the difficult task of bringing Islamized Armenian women back into the Armenian community and to their roots. Aleksanyan highlighted the role of Danish missionary, Karen Jeppe, who worked relentlessly towards this end in Aleppo, Syria. Despite efforts to rescue Islamized Armenian women, many chose to not return to the Armenian community and to remain with their Arab/Kurd/Turk husbands due to the intense shame they felt.

    Hourig Attarian (post-doctoral fellow at Concordia University) shared her research on Armenian women who led double lives after the Genocide. In her paper, “Storying Narratives of Silences and Secrets in the Aftermath of Genocide,” Attarian incorporates material from the AGBU central archives in Aleppo. Marginal notes written after each ledger entry provide insight into these women’s lives. Attarian wove into her presentation moving accounts of her own family members, describing the joy, and later, anguish they experienced as they found, and then lost touch of an aunt.

    Ay?e Gül Alt?nay (professor at Sabanci University) discussed Armenian Islamized women in Turkey in her presentation, “Gendered Silencing of Islamized Armenians.” Altinay estimates that there were as many as two hundred thousand Armenian women who had been Islamized after the Genocide. Unfortunately, there is scant research on this subject, partly because Islamized Armenian women were considered “lost” and therefore, no longer Armenian. The grandchildren of Islamized Armenians are now surfacing in Turkish society, and thus, challenging notions of ethnic and cultural identity for both Turkish and Armenian nationalists.

    Arlene Avakian (retired professor at the University of Massachusetts), discussant for this panel, highlighted the unifying themes in each of the papers, seamlessly connecting the papers to each other.

    via Armenian Reporter:.

  • Nagorno-Karabakh Before the War

    Nagorno-Karabakh Before the War

     Paul Goble 2

     

     

     

     

    Paul Goble
    Publications Advisor
    Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy  
    Because the international community has rejected the argument that the right of national self-determination includes the right to declare independence from an existing state if that state does not agree, Armenian activists seeking independence for Nagorno-Karabakh or alternatively its transfer from Azerbaijani sovereignty to Armenian increasingly stress that ethnic Armenians there were subject to intense economic, cultural and ethnic discrimination prior to 1988 when the war between Armenian and Azerbaijan entered its active phase.

    However, as Azerbaijani analysts point out, the record shows that such claims lack any foundation and that in fact ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh were on all objective measures economically, socially and politically better off than almost all ethnic Azerbaijanis there and in other Azerbaijani regions except for the republic capital of Baku.  Those findings have now been summarized in the latest article in the “Historical Prism” series of the Azerbaijani Day.az news agency. [1] 

    As the article notes, “beginning with the second half of the 1960s and up to the beginning of the last phase of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1988, the Armenian side in numerous letters and appeals to Moscow pointed to the impossibility of guaranteeing its social-economic, cultural and national development within Azerbaijan as one of the main reasons for uniting the oblast to Armenia.”

    Unfortunately for their case, the article continues, the available evidence shows that Armenian claims in this regard lack any real foundation.  Because the last census was carried out in Nagorno-Karabakh only in 1979—the military conflict precluded the enumeration of that region in 1989 and later—ethnic Armenians formed roughly three-quarters of the total population there at the end of Soviet times.  Although industry accounted for 60 percent of the region’s GDP in 1986, only about 11 percent of working age adults were industrial workers.  Most were in agriculture and especially various aspects of grape and wine production.  Nonetheless, the article notes, only Baku and Sumgayit in Azerbaijan had a higher percentage of working-age adults in industrial pursuits.

    In the mid-1980s, Nagorno-Karabakh annually exported 150 million rubles of industrial and agricultural produce, but only three-tenths of one percent of that production went to Armenia—and only 1.4 percent of the region’s “imports” came from that Soviet republic.  These two figures underscore, the article continues, how little integrated Nagorno-Karabakh was with Armenia and how much with the rest of Azerbaijan, again contrary to Armenian nationalist claims.

    Both industrial and agricultural production in Nagorno-Karabakh was rising rapidly at that time, again contrary to Armenian claims.  Although the region constituted only two percent of the total Azerbaijani output, its share of republic GDP was five percent, a figure that reflected the fact that between 1973 and 1978, industrial production in Karabakh rose by 300 percent and agricultural by 150.

    Because of this growth and because of the capital investments in Karabakh by Baku, the article says, “the level of life of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh was the highest among other regions of the republic and could be compared with the level of life in Baku.”  In 1986, annual per capita income in Karabakh was 1113.5 rubles, 97.8 rubles above the all-republic average and 170.4 rubles above the per capita figure in Nakhchivan.

    Residents of Karabakh—including the ethnic Armenians—also had more housing stock.  In 1987, for example, each resident there had on average 14.6 square meters, compared to an all-Azerbaijani average of 10.9 square meters.  And similarly high levels existed in terms of the medical service Karabakh residents had as well, the Day.az article continues.

    Despite Armenian nationalist claims, the article says, “the Armenian language [at the end of the 1980s] occupied a dominant position in the oblast.”  At that time, there were 205 primary schools and six specialized secondary schools, almost all of which had Armenian as the language of instruction.  Moreover, and again contrary to Armenian nationalist claims, the Azerbaijani authorities encouraged visits by Armenian SSR cultural figures to Karabakh and did not prevent ethnic Armenians in that oblast from travelling to Yerevan.

    The educational system was not the only place where the ethnic Armenian majority in Karabakh enjoyed advantages.  The government soviets in that oblast, with the exception of Shusha, were overwhelmingly made up of ethnic Armenians, in most cases 90 to 98 percent.  In the oblast committee of the Communist Party, the majority of the 165 members consisted of ethnic Armenians, with only 24 of them—13 percent—being ethnic Azerbaijanis.  The same situation obtained among the secretaries of primary party organizations; in some cases, as in Khankendi, the Day.az article points out, “practically 100 percent were reserved for the Armenians.”  And Armenian predominance was observed in trade unions, the Komsomol, and also in the militia.  Indeed, in many of these institutions, ethnic Azerbaijanis were underrepresented relative to their share in the population.

    The underlying demography in Karabakh was changing, both as a result of higher fertility rates among the ethnic Azerbaijanis and outmigration of ethnic Armenians to Armenia if they spoke Armenian or to the RSFSR if they spoke Russian and of ethnic Azerbaijanis from Karabakh to major Azerbaijani cities such as Baku.  Prior to the 1960s, most ethnic Armenians who left Karabakh went to Baku or other industrial centers, the article continues, but after that time, most of them went beyond the borders of Azerbaijan and in large measure to neighboring Armenia.

    While some of this may have reflected underlying tensions between the two basic communities of the region, much of it reflects the fact that in 1959 the Soviet authorities gave collective farmers their passports thus allowing rural people to move more easily to the cities.  In the case of Azerbaijan, this led to an expansion in the use of Azerbaijani in Baku and other cities at the expense of Russian and undoubtedly to greater ethnic self-consciousness among the republic’s titular nationality as well, something that may have had an impact on ethnic Armenians in Karabakh and elsewhere.

    Between 1970 and 1979, the number of ethnic Azerbaijanis in Azerbaijan as a whole increased by 25 percent and in Karabakh by 37 percent.  And in the latter, Azerbaijanis “took the jobs freed up by the migration of ethnic Armenians out of Karabakh,” a situation that undoubtedly had an impact on how both groups viewed the future.  That, rather than any discrimination by Baku against ethnic Armenians, explains the basic trends, and as the international community seeks a resolution of the Karabakh conflict, it is worth remembering that before the war, the ethnic Armenians in Karabakh were doing better than many of their neighbors, something that would not have been the case had the current claims of Armenian nationalists were true.


    Notes

    [1] See https://news.day.az/politics/338784.html (accessed 20 June 2012).

     

    source – 

  • Turkish airline company starts TRNC-Lebanon flights

    Turkish airline company starts TRNC-Lebanon flights

    AA

    atlasjet

    Turkish airline company Atlasjet launched flights between TRNC and Beirut, Lebanon via southern province of Adana as of July 3.

    LEFKOSA

    Turkish airline company Atlasjet launched flights between Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) and Beirut, Lebanon via southern province of Adana as of July 3.

    The flights are being held on Tuesdays and Fridays.
    TRNC Tourism, Environment and Culture Minister Unal Ustel said that these flights would contribute to improvement of tourism and education sectors as well as commercial relations between TRNC and Lebanon.
    The number of foreign tourists visiting TRNC in the first six months of 2012 rose by 20 percent, Ustel said.

     

     

  • Turkish Cypriot athletes excluded from the London 2012 Olympic Games

    Turkish Cypriot athletes excluded from the London 2012 Olympic Games

    olympics cyprusMonday 9th July 2012: The British Turkish Cypriot Association and Southwark Turkish Cypriot Association will be issuing the attached letter to Lord Moynihan, Chairman of the British Olympics Association, ahead of the start of the London 2012 Olympic Games.

     

    British Turkish Cypriot Association Chairman, Cetin Ramadan, said in a letter to Lord Moynihan: Many British Turkish Cypriots have expressed their dismay, sadness and disappointment at the exclusion of Turkish Cypriot athletes in the forthcoming London Olympic Games. As the British Turkish Cypriot Association, we have been called upon to channel their heartfelt grievances and request a reason why the International Olympic Committee (IOC) cannot accept Turkish Cypriots participating under the Olympic flag. Regardless of the political circumstances in Cyprus, this should not be used as a reason to bar Turkish Cypriots from sport. We cannot understand why the IOC has denied participation of Turkish Cypriot athletes in the London 2012 Olympic Games especially as they are willing to compete as individual athletes under the Olympic flag, similar to other athletes from countries such as Kuwait, Syria, Iran and Kosovo. Any world class athlete would consider it an honour to represent their own nation and to compete under the colours of their national flag. The Turkish Cypriot athletes are no exception; they too want to represent their own people and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. However, the Turkish Cypriot athletes have put aside the politics and compromised their own flag and country by agreeing to participate under the Olympic flag as a positive way forward.

    The former President of the IOC, the late Juan Antonio Samaranch, had made an offer to Turkish Cypriots allowing them to participate in all future Olympic Games under the Olympic flag. Turkish Cypriots are willing to accept participation under the terms laid out by the former IOC President and to join the Games under the Olympic flag as individuals rather than under their own national flag. We cannot comprehend what has changed since the IOC’s original invitation and why the current President Mr. Jacques Rogge is not entering into dialogue with the Turkish Cypriot sportsmen and women who have already submitted an application for participation in the London 2012 Games.
    Despite this clear example of the benefits of inclusion, many sporting bodies such as the UK FA, IOC and FIFA, which openly promote inclusion for everyone and denounce political discrimination, seem to conveniently ignore their own rules when it comes to the sporting rights of Turkish Cypriots sportsmen and women. Point 4 of the IOC’s Fundamental Principles of Olympism states that:
    “The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.”
    Furthermore, item 6 points out that:
    “Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.”
    Are Turkish Cypriot athletes an exception to these principles? The British Olympic Association (BOA) openly promotes inclusion for everyone and they clearly denounce political discrimination. We hope the same principle applies for the sporting rights of Turkish Cypriot athletes from Northern Cyprus. Young Turkish Cypriot athletes also have the same aspirations as all top class world athletes. We are asking the BOA to support the inclusion of Turkish Cypriot athletes in these and future Olympic events. Furthermore, we would like to appeal to the BOA to raise this matter with the IOC as a matter of urgency. We believe that the discrimination of this magnitude represents a particularly vicious form of unreason and fear in the search for a UN sponsored political agreement in Cyprus. We believe it is precisely the mission of the IOC to dispel any such future actions by setting an example of the importance of diversity at a European and global platform. We have raised this subject with other ethnic community groups in both the UK and abroad particularly interested in observing the outcome of an official complaint against the IOC and hope that they will resolve the issue promptly and fairly and within accordance of the above mentioned principles. There are thousands of Turkish Cypriots living in the UK who are finding it difficult to embrace the 2012 London Games in the same manner as other nationals of ethnic origin, simply because our brethren are being excluded. Help us to change this absurd and unjust situation by supporting the inclusion of Turkish Cypriot athletes in these and future Olympic events.

  • “PKK Failed in Armenia”

    “PKK Failed in Armenia”

    murinsonWe evaluated extremely important subjects and events in South Caucasus with Dr. Alexander MURINSON for Strategic Outlook readers. (more…)

  • NEW YORK SENATE – RECOGNIZING 1918 AZERBAIJANI GENOCIDE

    NEW YORK SENATE – RECOGNIZING 1918 AZERBAIJANI GENOCIDE

    Dear Mr. Huseynov,
    Congratulations on an important and noteworthy accomplishment.
    TURKISH FORUM

    On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Javid Huseynov <[email protected]> wrote:
    Azerbaijani-American Council
    (AAC)
    P.O.Box 54571, Irvine, CA 92619 
    Azerbaijan Society of America
    (ASA)
    103 Elwood Avenue, Newark , NJ 07104
    AzeriCouncil
    July 7, 2012
    OFFICIAL COPY OF THE NEW YORK SENATE RESOLUTION 3784 RECOGNIZING AZERBAIJANI GENOCIDE
    Dear Azerbaijani- and Turkic-Americans,
    We are pleased to inform that AAC has received an official copy of the New York State Senate resolution 3784the first-ever legislative recognition of the Azerbaijani Genocide – that also designated March 31 as Azerbaijani Remembrance Day in the State of New York. The resolution 3784, introduced by State Senator James Alesi of Rochester, New York (NY-55th district) and adopted in the Senate as a result of efforts by the members of Azerbaijan Society of America and Azerbaijani-American Council, details the facts of horrific massacres committed by Bolshevik and Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnak party) forces led by Stepan Shaumyan against Azerbaijani civilians in March 1918 and designates these acts as a genocide.
    The image scan of this important recognition by the New York Senate is now available at:
    proclamations/AzerbaijaniGenocide_NYSenateRes3784_2012.jpg