Tag: Turkey-Armenia

  • Proposal to Create a Framework  Uniting Diaspora Armenians

    Proposal to Create a Framework Uniting Diaspora Armenians

    sassounian33

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    Armenians are great believers in national unity. Actually, they are obsessed with it.

    Yet, despite all the talk about unifying the Armenian people, writing fiery poems and singing patriotic songs about the benefits of unity, this most cherished dream remains elusive. Examples of failed attempts at unity are aplenty. Even in perilous times, Armenians have remained at odds and marched to the beat of different drummers.

    However, as growing numbers of Armenians have come to realize that unity is critical for their national survival, they have managed in recent years to register modest successes in coalition building. Both the worldwide Hayastan All Armenian Fund and the U.S.-based United Armenian Fund consist of coalitions of major community organizations that carry out humanitarian work in Armenia and Artsakh (Karabagh).

    Ironically, as the proponents of unity have proliferated, so have the schemes to unify Armenians, leading to potential new divisions on how to achieve unification! There are now several such initiatives in different parts of the world, ranging from bringing all Armenian organizations under a single umbrella, to groupings of Armenian professionals, compatriotic societies and Western Armenians. In a recent column, the mere reference to the need for a Diaspora-wide organizational structure generated an overwhelmingly positive response.

    While all of the foregoing unity schemes merit serious consideration, and their advocates may end up joining hands, I wish to present some preliminary ideas which are the result of several years of reflection and serious discussions with respected individuals and community leaders in different countries.

    My proposed scheme involves the establishment of a unity framework representing Armenians throughout the Diaspora, excluding those living in the Republics of Armenia and Artsakh who are already represented by their respective governments. The estimated seven million Diasporans would be entitled to elect one representative for every 20,000 Armenians living in a particular electoral district. Candidates meeting certain pre-established qualifications can nominate themselves to represent the 20,000 Armenians in their district. Voters have to be at least 18 years old, be of Armenian origin, and have a verifiable electronic or mailing address in their electoral district. Armenians meeting these criteria can participate in the election, regardless of their citizenship, country of origin, religious or political affiliation. The election would be organized on the basis of the democratic principle of “one man, one vote!”

    In countries with a large Armenian population, several candidates would be elected to represent each group of 20,000 residents. While in sparsely Armenian-populated regions of the world, where 20,000 Armenians may be spread across several countries, one elected individual would represent the Armenian residents of those countries. Initially, there may be a low turn-out of voters. However, as the new structure gains strength and legitimacy, it will attract a greater number of participants. Elections do not have to be carried out simultaneously throughout the Diaspora. They could be held initially in one region to test the feasibility of the electoral procedures. In this regard, I wish to welcome the recent decision by French-Armenian community leaders to hold nationwide elections in France next year to select their representatives.

    It is important to note that only those elected by the public-at-large can truly state that they represent the Armenians residing in their district, while other community leaders can only claim to represent the members of their own organization! Consequently, the collective body of 350 representatives from all the electoral districts throughout the Diaspora can officially claim to represent Armenians worldwide, outside of Armenia and Artsakh.

    This collective body will have an elected chairperson or Speaker, committees and subcommittees dealing with culture, language, religion, education, foreign affairs, rights of Armenian minorities, relations with Armenia and Artsakh, Genocide recognition, demands for redress from Turkey, and financial matters.

    This 350-member body shall meet periodically and make decisions on the basis of majority vote. On certain critical issues, the body could adopt decisions by a two-thirds majority. Its decisions would reflect the views of the entire Diaspora, not just a particular organization. The existing Armenian organizations will continue to function with no hindrance or competition from this new transnational entity. In fact, the community organizations could expand their reach and increase their clout by lobbying the elected representatives of this new collective body to adopt their respective agendas. Since today’s Diaspora leaders are prominent members of their communities, it would not be surprising to see many of them elected to this new entity by popular vote.

    A key advantage of the new structure is the likelihood of its recognition by the United Nations and other regional and international organizations as a non-governmental organization (NGO) with the right to represent and speak on behalf of Diaspora Armenians.

    The representatives of the new entity in a particular city or country can also interact with local authorities on behalf of all Armenians residing in that region. For example, the recent dispute among Armenian-Americans about which group should represent the community in a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have been easily avoided if the proposed transnational body were in existence. Furthermore, Armenian government officials as well as foreign leaders would know whom to call when they need to contact the elected representatives of the Diaspora.

    The representatives of this new structure could also endorse candidates in local or national elections in different countries. This role becomes crucial in key elections or when multiple Armenian candidates run for the same office and split the Armenian vote, resulting in the defeat of all Armenian candidates. Those endorsed by this body would likely enjoy the support of the majority of local voters.

    Before attempting to implement such an ambitious initiative, several important steps need to be undertaken:

    1) A team of researchers would need to study similar schemes created by Israel, Greece, Lebanon, Italy, and other countries to benefit from their experience. Such a study could be carried out by the USC Institute of Armenian Studies which would then formulate the best mechanisms to conduct elections worldwide, including estimating the number of voters in each country, qualifications of voters and candidates, and measures to prevent voter fraud. The Institute could also propose significant details about the structure and function of the collective body (meeting procedures, committees and subcommittees, recall procedures, term limits, electing chairs and vice chairs).

    2) Before any public announcement is made about the establishment of the unity framework, the organizing committee should contact the leaders of influential Diaspora organizations to acquaint them with the new initiative and welcome their suggestions and support.

    3) The organizing committee should also brief government officials in Armenia and Artsakh about the objectives of the planned organization, and secure their tacit support without their actual involvement. After the newly-elected body becomes functional, its authorized representatives would interact with officials of both Armenia and Artsakh on a regular basis. It is critical to maintain the independence of the Diaspora-wide body, in order to shield Armenian officials from pressure by foreign powers to influence the decision-making of the new entity.

    Once established, this transnational organization would create for the first time a representative body in the Diaspora with political and economic clout capable of promoting Armenian interests, preserving cultural values and defending Armenian rights worldwide.

  • Parliament Addresses Armenian Pullout From Turkey Accord

    Parliament Addresses Armenian Pullout From Turkey Accord

    6DDCBB96 3CA5 4E4F 93D3 C92B22F65C12 w527 sArmenia — The parliament building in Yerevan.

    23.02.2010
    Sargis Harutyunyan, Karine Kalantarian

    The National Assembly began debating on Tuesday a government bill that would make it easier for Armenia to annul its normalization agreements with Turkey if Ankara continues to delay their ratification.

    The proposed amendments to an Armenian law on international treaties envisage the suspension or termination of agreements signed by Yerevan before their entry into force.

    President Serzh Sarkisian announced his intention to enact such amendments in December in response to Turkish leaders’ continuing statements making the ratification of the Turkish-Armenian “protocols” conditional on the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh. He made clear that Yerevan will walk away from the deal if Ankara fails to implement it within a “reasonable” time frame.

    Addressing the parliament, Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian effectively admitted that the amendments were drafted on Sarkisian’s orders. “The president of the republic made a statement on and I have nothing to add to it,” he said.

    Opposition and independent lawmakers criticized the initiative, saying that Armenian law and international conventions signed by Yerevan already allow for the abrogation of international treaties.

    “I am sure that our legislation in no way restricts the president’s authority to suspend the process of terminating the ratification of any treaty,” said former parliament speaker Tigran Torosian. “I am more than convinced that there is absolutely no need to pass this bill,” he added.

    The bill was included on the parliament agenda just days after Sarkisian formally sent the two protocols to the parliament for ratification. But the National Assembly and its committee on foreign relations are in no rush to debate the documents envisaging the establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey and opening of their border.

    A spokesman for Sarkisian’s Republican Party of Armenia (HHK), which has a clear majority in the assembly, on Tuesday again made clear that it will not vote on the protocols before their ratification by the Turkish parliament. Like other Armenian officials, Eduard Sharmazanov again avoided setting any deadlines for Turkish ratification.

    David Harutiunian, the chairman of the parliament committee on legal affairs, said Yerevan may wait for “one or two or several months” before deciding whether to discontinue the normalization process. “It’s not possible to give a definite answer at this point. It depends on many processes,” Harutiunian told journalists when asked what the Armenian side means by a “reasonable timeframe.”

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reportedly reiterated on Monday that Turkey will not implement the protocols unless there is a breakthrough in international efforts to settle the Karabakh conflict.

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1966347.html
  • Washington blames Ankara for trouble in Armenian issue

    Washington blames Ankara for trouble in Armenian issue

    meclis amerika

    MEHMET ALİ BİRAND

    Monday, February 22, 2010

    The signed historical protocols with Armenia are losing their attractiveness with each passing day. General evaluation by Washington shows that Ankara is to be blamed for the point we arrived at. The Obama administration is very negative about the future of this protocol and the “genocide” resolution.
    If we gather evaluations and statements made by those monitoring upper-level authorities in Washington closely in this regard, then a totally different scenario from what we assumed emerges.
    One of the very first steps taken by the Obama administration in order to get rid of this genocide dilemma was to bring Turkey and Armenia together for a long process of discussion. Those who characterized this as a “step taken deliberately” complain, “We spent a lot of effort and time.”
    The same circles that draw attention to the process that started with a visit by the president and continued with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton focusing on this issue say that Turkey is responsible for what happened later on.
    According to the Americans, Turkey was not able to effectively convince Azerbaijan in time. People believe that after the signing the protocols it surrendered to Baku’s brisk reaction too soon.
    The prime minister linking the condition of signing the protocols in Parliament to the Karabakh issue is perceived by them as a “fatal stroke.”
    And the decision of the Armenian Constitutional Court they perceive as an “intelligible reaction” that does not hinder the protocol in harmony with the country’s general atmosphere.

    ‘Genocide’ resolution may pass this time

    It is being called attention to how the Obama administration will react when this now in Washington prioritized issue of “genocide” resolution in respect to Turkey comes up in Congress.
    During Obama’s election campaign he attracted attention saying that he would acknowledge the Armenian genocide and if there was no further development he’d be forced to continue his attitude.
    The same authority says “the shortest and most effective way to change this situation is for Turkey to separate the Armenian protocols from a solution in Karabakh,” knowing how difficult this is. But he can’t restrain himself from saying, “There is no other way out.”
    You see there are again black clouds gathering in Washington, as typical each year. The same scenarios will be played. Mutual threats, unnecessary tension and relations harmed.
    Will Washington just observe this situation?
    The following is the answer we get:
    “Can you tell us what Turkey does to make Obama not lose his bonus by taking back his promise? Why should we put the president into a difficult situation only to please an Ankara that constantly beats Israel or is at adverse terms with us regarding Iran?”
    Recently opponents of the AKP in Washington are able to more effectively make their views public. In the beginning the Obama administration did not pay much attention and continued supporting Erdoğan. But this support has slowly eroded. They say, “We no longer can pretend not hear their voices. We have started to feel that something is fishy about Turkish foreign politics.”
    This is the latest situation in the Armenian “genocide” resolution, to the attention of all those who are related to the subject.
    © 2009 Hurriyet Daily News
    URL: www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=washington-blames-ankara-for-trouble-in-armenian-issue-2010-02-

    — On Mon, 2/22/10, Hikmet Ersoy <hikmetersoy@superonline.com> wrote:

    From: Hikmet Ersoy <hikmetersoy@superonline.com>
    Subject: TURKIYE ARTIK TEK BASINA…
    To: “Turkish Forum” <turkish-forum-advisory-board@googlegroups.com>, , “dtk (Dunya Turkleri Konseyi)” <dtk@turkishnews.com>

    Bildigimiz gibi ABD DIS Isler Komitesi 4.mart gunu bizi ilgilendiren cok kritik bir oylama yapacak.
    Anlasilan o ki uzun yillardan beri “Soykirim..” tasarisinin gecmemesi icin Kongre de Turkiye lehine lobi yapan
    Yahudi Kuruluslari Israil-Turkiye gerginligi nedeni ile bu kez seyirci kalacakmis….Ve savasmamizi beklemeyin demisler.
    ( Sebebi herhalde hepimiz biliyoruz…!!! )
    Zaten ortalikda Turk lobisi denilecek bir sey yok… Daha once Bush ve Clinton aksine karar cikmasini onlemislerdi…
    O tarihlerde Musevi lobisi gercekden bizi desteklemisti…
    Fakat anlasiliyor ki Obamanin gucu bugun yeterli olmayacak…
    AIPAC ( En guclu Israil lobisi ) parmagini bile kipirdatmayacakmis…
    ADL ( Etkili Yahudi toplulugu ) Herhangi bir calisma icinde degiliz,demis.
    JEWISH STREET – Pozisyonumuzu olmayacak demis…
    Butun bunlarin karsiliginda Turk Dis Isleri “Kiyamet kopar ve Turkiyenin baski gordugunde geri adim atan degil
    aksine cok sert….!!!! tepki veren bir yapiya sahip oldugunu ..!!!! ” hatirlatmislar ilave olarak da “ABD ile iliskilerimiz
    gozden gecirilir..” demisler….!!!!!!!!!.
    Sonucda “Haticeye degil, neticeye bakacagiz…” . Insallah Amerikalilar bu tepkimizden korkarlar….!!!!! ve
    oy birligi ile lehimize karar verirler…!!!!
    H.E
  • Washington DC – Khojali Massacre DEMONSTRATION

    Washington DC – Khojali Massacre DEMONSTRATION

    COMMUNITY DEMONSTRATION

    To Commemorate the Anniversary of Khojali Massacre

    And Protest Armenia’s Occupation of Western Azerbaijan

    Friday, February 26, 2009 Time and Location 11:30 AM  – 12:00 PM:

    Assembling at Dupont Circle

    (intersection of Massachusetts , Connecticut , and New Hampshire avenues).

    Closest metro station: Dupont Circle , red line. 1

    2:00 PM -1:30 PM:

    Walking through Massachusetts Avenue to the Embassy of Armenia

    located at 2225 R Street NW (intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and R Street ,

    near Sheridan Circle ) and holding demonstration.

    1:30 PM:

    Disbanding. This event, organized by local community members,

    has been coordinated with Washington DC Metropolitan Police and Secret Service.

    Sound equipment and signs will be provided, but participants are free to bring their own signs, posters, and flags. 

    Due to heavy traffic in and around DC area and difficulties with finding parking space,

    participants are encouraged to use public transportation,

    especially Metro, to ensure timely arrival.

    For additional information, contact Bedir Memmedli,  703-400-2523  703-400-2523 or bedir_memmedli@yahoo.com

    DEMAND JUSITCE FOR KHOJALI VICTIMS!

    SAY NO TO ARMENIAN MILITARY PRESENCE IN WESTERN AZERBAIJAN !

    SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR AZERBAIJAN’ S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY

  • HISTORY: The situation of the Armenians: By one who was among them

    HISTORY: The situation of the Armenians: By one who was among them

    By Hj Pravitz, Nya Dagligt Allehanda, 23 April, 1917

    By Hj Pravitz, Nya Dagligt Allehanda, 23 April, 1917

    Hj Pravitz takes a deeper look at the statements that had previously been made by Mrs. Marika Stjernstedt, in Nya Dagligt Allehanda, a Swedish Newspaper published in the period 1859-1944.

    *******************
    “Recently returned home from abroad I have right now – i.e. somewhat late – had the opportunity to look at two Swedish booklets on the Armenian issue. “Sven Hedin – adelsman” [Sven Hedin a nobility], by Ossiannilsson and “Armeniernas fruktansvärda läge” [the terrible situation of the Armenians], by Marika Stjernstedt. The former book went immediately in the waste basket. In all its poorly hidden appreciation of the title character, it annoyed me more than a main article in Dagens Nyheter. The latter, which seemed spirited by the compassion for the suffering Armenians, I have read repeatedly, and it is really this and its inaccuracies that my article is about.

    I dare to claim, that hardly any other Swede has had the opportunity like me, to thoroughly and closely study the misery among the Armenians, since I now for about a month have traveled right among all the emigrating poor people. And this, during the right time, fall 1915, during which the alleged brutalities, according to both writers, were particularly bad.

    I want to hope, that what I am describing below, which are my own experiences, will have the purpose to remove the impression of inhumanity and barbarity from the Turkish and German side, which is easily induced by the reading of the two booklets mentioned above.

    If I understand the contents of the books correctly, both writers want to burden the Turks as well as the Germans with deliberate assaults or even cruelties.

    My position as an imbedded eyewitness gives me the right and duty to protest against such claims, and the following, based on my experiences, will support and strengthen this protest.

    Despite the fact that I was and am such a pronounced friend of Germany and its allies, which is consistent with the position of a servant of a neutral country, I started my journey from Konstantinopel (Istanbul) through the Asian Turkey, with a certain prejudiced point of view, partly received from American travelers, about the persecution of the Armenians by their Turkish masters. My Lord, which misery I would see, and to which cruelties I would be a witness! And although my long service in the Orient has not convinced me that the Armenians, despite their Christianity, are any of God’s best children, I decided to keep my eyes open to see for myself to which extent the rumors about Turkish assaults are true and the nameless victims were telling the truth.

    I sure got to view misery, but planned cruelties? Absolutely nothing.

    This is precisely why it has appeared to me to be necessary to speak up.

    To start with, it is unavoidable to state, that a transfer of the unreliable Armenian elements from the northern parts of the Ottoman Empire to the south was done by the Turkish government due to compulsory reasons.

    It should have been particularly important to remove, from the Erzeroum district, all these settlers, who only waited for a Russian invasion to join the invading army against the hated local legal authority. When Erzeroum fell in February 1916, an Armenian, with whom I just shared Russian imprisonment, uttered something I interpreted as ‘It would have fallen way earlier if we had been allowed to stay.’ That a country like Turkey, threatened and attacked by powerful external enemies, is trying to secure itself against cunning internal enemies, no one should be able to blame her.

    I think it points to a misconception when one claims that the Armenians are living under the uninterrupted distress of some sort of Turkish slavery. There are peoples that have it worse. Or what about Indian Kulis and Bengalis under British rule, and the Persian nationalists in Azerbaijan under the Russians’ – “penetration pacificue”, and the Negroes in Belgian Congo, and the Indians in the Kautschuk district in French Guyana. All these, not to mention many others, seem to me, are victimized to a higher degree and more permanently than the Armenians. I guess technically, one can say that a longer lasting but milder persecution is less bearable to endure than a bloody but quick act of despotism, as in (Ottoman) assaults of the kind that from time to time put Europe’s attention on the Armenian issue. Apart from these periodical so-called massacres, the reason of which could to a large degree be ascribed to the Armenians themselves, I do think that the (Armenians) are treated reasonably well.

    The (Armenians) have their own religion, their own language, both in speaking and writing, their own schools etc.

    As far as the much discussed major Armenian migration is concerned, I am the first to agree that the attempts of the Turkish side to reduce the difficulties of the refugees left a lot to be desired. But I emphasize again, in the name of fairness, that considering the difficult situation in which Turkey, as the target of attack from three powerful enemies, was in and it was, in my opinion, almost impossible for the Turks, under these circumstances, to have been able to keep up an orderly assistance activity.

    I have seen these poor refugees, or “emigrants”, to use Tanin’s words, seen them closely. I have seen them in the trains in Anatolia, in oxen wagons in Konia and elsewhere, by foot in uncountable numbers up in the Taurus mountains, in camps in Tarsus and Adana, in Aleppo, in Deir-el-Zor and Ana.

    I have seen dying and dead along the roads – but among hundreds of thousands there must, of course, occur casualties. I have seen childrens’ corpses, shredded to pieces by jackals, and pitiful individuals stretch their bony arms with piercing screams of “ekmek” (bread).

    But I have never seen direct Turkish assaults against the ones hit by destiny. A single time I saw a Turkish gendarme in passing hit a couple of slow moving people with his whip; but similar things have happened to me in Russia, without me complaining, not then, nor later.

    In Konia, there lived a French woman, Madame Soulie, with family and an Italian maid. They lived there, despite the war, and the Turks did them no harm. And as far as the Germans stationed in the town are concerned, she called them ‘our angels.’ ‘They give all they have to the Armenians!.’ Such evidence of German readiness to sacrifice I established everywhere the Germans were.

    In Aleppo, I lived by the Armenian Baron, the owner of a large hotel. He did not tell me about any Turkish cruelties, although we talked a lot about the situation of his fellow citizens. We also talked about Djemal Pasha, who would come the day after and with whom I would meet. Baron expressed himself very positively about this man, who by the way, least of all seemed like an executioner.

    In Aleppo, I hired an Armenian servant, who then during a couple of months was my daily company. Not a word has he told me about Turkish cruelties, neither in Aleppo nor in his home town of Marash or elsewhere. I must unconditionally believe in exaggerations from Mrs. Stjernstedt’s side and I do not put one bit of confidence in the Armenian authorities she claims to refer to.

    On page 44, Mrs. Stjernstedt writes about (the town of) Meskene and an Armenian doctor Turoyan. I was in Meskene right when he was supposed to have been there. I looked carefully around everywhere for historical landmarks, since Alexander the great crossed the Euphrates (river) here, and the old testament also talks about this place. There was not a sign of Armenian graves and not of any Armenians either, except for my just mentioned servant. I consider Mr. Turayan’s evidence very questionable, and I even dare to doubt that this man, if he exists, was ever there during the mentioned time. If the conditions in Meskene really were as he claims, will anyone then believe that the suspicious Turks would have sent an Armenian up there with a “mission from the government”?

    For fourteen days, I followed the Euphrates; it is completely out of the question that I during this time would not have seen at least some of the Armenian corpses that, according to Mrs. Stjernstedt’s statements, should have drifted along the river en masse at that time. A travel companion of mine, Dr. Schacht, was also travelling along the river. He also had nothing to tell when we later met in Baghdad.

    In summary, I think that Mrs. Stjernstedt, somewhat uncritically, has accepted the hair-raising stories from more or less biased sources, which formed the basis for her lecture.

    By this, I do not want to deny the bad situation for the Armenians, which probably can motivate the collection initialized by Mrs. Stjernstedt.

    But I do want to, as far as it can be considered to be within the powers of an eyewitness, deny that the regular Turkish gendarme forces, who supervised the transports, are guilty of any cruelties.

    Later on, in a different format, I want to impartially and neutrally like now treat the Armenian issue, but at the moment, may the adduced be enough.

    Rättvik, April 1917

    HJ Pravitz.

  • ENEMY WITHIN

    ENEMY WITHIN

    DIYARBAKIR MAYOR ASKS FOR ARMENIANS’ PARDON

    news.am
    Feb 8 2010
    Armenia

    Religious organization established in Turkish city of Mardin under
    the auspices of Democratic Society Party initiated “Mesopotamia: First
    religious congress” event. Newly appointed chairman of Kurdish Peace
    and Democracy party Selahattin Demirtas, party members, as well as
    Yazidis, Syrians, Armenians, Muslims – Sunnis and Christians attended.

    According to Turktime, Diyarbakir mayor Kurd Osman Beydemir delivered
    a speech at the congress. “Once Assyrians, Armenians and Kurds lived
    in Mesopotamia and this religious diversification symbolizes success,
    tolerance, peace and development. However, others came and ruled
    us for years; as a result people forcedly migrated from here. I
    am saying this with a sore heart. There are only several Armenian
    families in Diyarbakir, whereas 120 years ago they comprised 40%
    of the population. No apology can soothe this pain. You were through
    so many things, you forcedly left, but believe me you lost nothing,
    that’s us-staying here who lost. You took with you peace and success,”
    he outlined.

    As NEWS.am reported previously, Osman Beydemir also sharply criticized
    Turkish authorities for banning to bury Armenian singer Aram Tigran
    died August 8, 2009 in Diyarbakir (which was last will of the
    deceased). Mayor ordered to hold a service in the city’s Armenian
    cemetery and took the soil from the grave to Brussels where the
    singer was buried. Armenian cemetery of Diyarbakir was also cleaned
    and repaired at mayor’s order. The restoration of St. Kirakos church
    in Diyarbakir is being carried out as well.