Opinion: The Armenian Diaspora needs an own Constitution

August 28, 2015 By administrator

By Appo Jabarian, USA Armenianlife

It is not by a coincidence that millions of Armenians are in a diaspora.

Essentially, the Armenian Diaspora is a particular feature of almost a century of existence. It represents almost 75% of the Armenian population of the world.

If you ask an Armenian question in Yerevan, Stepanakert, or even Paris, Moscow, New York, Marseille, Tokyo, Tehran, Berlin, Beirut, Bourj Hammoud, Ainjar, Kessab, Damascus, Jerusalem, Cairo, Buenos Aires, Hong Kong, Sydney and in other places where the Diaspora, what he wants most for his people, his answer could be frequently: “The survival of the Armenian nation.”

If the question presented was: “What do they say meant by survival of the Armenian nation? “Many were asked” Survival of the Armenian state and the Armenian Diaspora. “

We the People…

In another question in the suite could be: “How can this survival? “It is very possible that the answer is” By systematically building the two entities. “

The times of the Soviet regime, after his fall and resurgence of Armenia as an independent state in 1991, the Armenian diaspora has proven to be indispensable.

During the liberation war of Artsakh against Azerbaijan, during the current political struggle against an omnipotent Turkey economically and politically and against its ally Azerbaijan, it is recognized that the Armenian Diaspora has become a decisive factor in favor of Armenia and Artsakh.

In recent decades, because of his vigilance and his pro-Armenian activity, the Diaspora has sought to provoke Turkey’s ire on several occasions.

Despite the fact that the Diaspora is not organized as it should be in it either, it is still dynamic, and on such fundamental issues as stability, protection and security of the nation with its two republics Armenia and sisters of Artsakh and its large diaspora, it is decidedly action-oriented.

But it could be that the coming decades are carriers of extreme challenges towards Armenia and the Diaspora.

The Armenian nation does not deserve the homeland and the Diaspora will engage in against the performance-one over the other, and so to the detriment of the nation as a whole.

In other words, the two segments of the nation must work together much like a German or Japanese car – durable, reliable, modern, practical, harmonious, efficient and always open to improvements. These two integral parts should continuously and indefinitely strive to maintain a synergistic coexistence.

Civil society in Armenia-Artsakh has a fundamental right: the Armenian Constitution which provides and regulates the rights and duties of the various branches of government.

For its part, civil society, the Diaspora does not have at its disposal a constitution nor a code of common rules and regulations that promote and maximize individual and collective work.

Some organizations in the Diaspora can claim that they have their own internal constitution or rules. However, there is no Constitution of the Armenian Diaspora that obliges and organizes the diaspora as a whole.

The Armenians of the Diaspora are entitled to organize themselves as a transnational community with the famous motto “all for one, one for all! “.

They have the right to declare themselves as holders of shares or ownership rights to a supreme structure of their diaspora democratically elected and therefore all organizations. It is a sacred right comes with rights and duties.

Under the Constitution of the Diaspora, all organizations and institutions based on faith or the community, should be treated as assets and cash on the balance sheet of the nation, and be accountable to the entire nation, morally and financially.

As beneficiaries of the moral and financial support of the Diaspora, all organizations must be signatories of a recognition or a Memorandum of accountability and transparency.

A very active diaspora and malfunctioning can be regenerated by a Constitution that definitely will give positive energy to the base, rehabilitate more defective organizations and ultimately promote a transnational together quite active and supportive.

Do we need unity or a framework for emulation and cooperation?

We need to Armenians a framework for emulation and cooperation under one constitutional dome. Such a framework can be developed and maintained by a Constitution of the Diaspora living.

By Appo Jabarian, USA Armenianlife

Head of Publication, Publishing Director

Friday, August 28, 2015,
Jean Eckian © armenews.com

Other information available: on Armenian Life Magazine

Libyan Prime Minister told Sputnik Qatar, Turkey to Blame for Forcing Political Islam in Libya

August 27, 2015 By administrator

Certain states aim to impose political Islam in Libya, Libyan Prime Minister told Sputnik in an interview. The country’s internationally recognized government is in need of arms to fight militants and seeks international airstrikes targeting the Islamic State extremist group.

OBRUK (Sputnik) – Qatar and Turkey are to blame for forcing political Islam on Libya, the prime minister of the internationally recognized Libyan government, Abdullah Thani, told Sputnik.

“There are states wishing to impose political Islam on us. Turkey and Qatar, for example, are attempting to impose it on Libya despite the people’s rejection,” Thani said.

That rejection was exemplified in the recent parliamentary elections, the prime minister added.

Thani acknowledged the willingness to cooperate with activists of political Islam as an integral part of the political landscape in the country.

“However, partnership does not imply hegemony, and not only in Libya. Qatar and Turkey have that experience in Egypt, where they strongly support the Muslim Brotherhood,” Thani stressed.

The internationally recognized Libyan government seeks international airstrikes targeting the Islamic State (IS) extremist group, not against political rivals, Prime Minister Abdullah Thani continued in an interview with Sputnik.The Arab League pledged military assistance during an extraordinary session requested by the internationally-recognized Tobruk-based government last week. The association ruled out targeted anti-IS airstrikes over Libyan territory.

“We asked for airstrikes on IS, not on our political rivals,” Thani clarified.

The prime minister argued for surgical strikes in coordination with the Libyan army because “all parties agree that IS must be stopped.”

The northeast port city of Tobruk government’s call for help came as Islamic State gained control over the northern Libyan city of Sirte, killing up to 200 people in mid-August.Libya is in need of arms to fight militants and does not consider foreign military assistance to be an encroachment on the sovereignty of the country, according to Abdullah Thani.

“We need weapons and ammunition… But we do not believe military assistance is akin to foreign interference,” Thani argued.

The prime minister said that a lack of weapons and an abundance of people willing to take up arms “creates an imbalance.”

“The international community helped us overthrow the [Gaddafi] regime, but did not help in building a new state,” Thani explained to Sputnik.

Libya has been in a state of civil war since the overthrow of longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 and is now split into two rival governments. The Tobruk-based government led by Thani is recognized internationally. The country’s capital of Tripoli and adjacent western areas are controlled by self-proclaimed authorities.

On Wednesday,the UN envoy to Libya, Bernadino Leon, told the UN Security Council the rival Libyan authorities were in the “final stages” of forming a national unity government.

Source: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150827/1026251430.html#ixzz3k2Ajqwv7

Turkey to freeze anti-Armenian plans to avoid multi-front conflicts – Armenian analyst

August 21, 2015 By administrator

in an interview with Tert.am, Head of the Modus Vivendi center Ara Papyan commented on Kurds declaring Turkey’s Dersim an autonomous region and spoke of consequences.
According to him, a number of analysts, including himself, are speaking of that. That is, time of disintegration of empires is coming. Turkey has found itself “between two or three fires” and has to freeze its anti-Armenian programs for a while not to war on several battlefields at a time.
Mr Papyan, Kurdish insurgents have declared Dersim an autonomous region and set checkpoints there. What will be the impact on Armenia in terms of security and, so to say, territorial claims?
To understand the phenomena we should take a wider view of things. I think is frozen process is simmering in the Middle East, which stemmed from World War I. This is disintegration of empires. At one moment, the process was interrupted because of the Russian revolution to resume in the Balkans in the 1990s. And it should be expected in the Middle East and Russia now. I think that, if establishing good-neighborly relations with neighbors fails, relations need to be established with organized societies – religious or ethnic groups – in the states in question.

Alevis constitute 70-80 percent of the Dersim population, with a dense Alevi population in the adjacent territories. And it is a question of 12-20 million people in Turkey.
I should also note that although Alevis are considered Shiites, many of them do not profess Islam. They consider themselves followers of a different religion because of essential differences. Moreover, Alevis have shown a much better attitude to Armenians and it is no coincidence that many more Armenians were saved in the Alevi-populated regions during the Armenian Genocide. We should also remember the Dersim massacre of 1938. In contrast to the Armenian Genocide, Turkey actually recognized the massacre and Recep Erdogan gave an apology. This all, with developing sense of national identity, is a new phenomenon. Will it lead to disintegration of Turkey and formation of new states – it is too early to speak of that. However, the fact is that it is a most serious process. And Dersim is not the only region. Numerous other Kurdish regions are being ravaged by hostilities. So we are entering a period of serious changes many, including myself, have for years spoken of.

When war operations got under way along the Turkey-Syria border at the end of July, you foresaw the start of difficult times for Turkey. So is the self-proclamation of Dersim a sign that your predictions are coming true?
It is, as a matter of fact, a phase of those difficult days, with Turkey being between the devil and the deep see. On the one hand, it faces [the ethnic] minorities internally; we call them minorities conventionally, because a dense population of 12, 15 or 20 million is far from being a minority; It’s a whole commune, let alone a nation as the Alevi community needs to be treated as a creed. It’s a powerful phenomenon. The other trouble is that the Islamists have started pressuring Turkey. So Turkey is facing blows by the Alevis from the left and the Islamists from the right. Plus, the West is shifting the emphasis on cooperation to Iran, a move that will undermine Turkey’s major significance.
We, the Armenians, will yet another time, find ourselves unprepared in face of the groundbreaking periods. Obviously, though, it is very important to be prepared for such moments. It is periods like this that open up an opportunity to solve different problems, including Armenia’s land issue. And this is where the Alevis could be allies for us, as it appears to be a big problem for Turkey. It isn’t as though it lessens Turkey’s chances for intervention. Let us not forget that Turkey has sunk in the West’s estimation as a NATO member country and an Islamic state without, at the same time, finding allies in the Islamic world. On the contrary, it has gained enemies. So I repeat, Turkey is going to face hard times. As to our possible advantages, it is linked to quite a lot of objective and subjective factors.
So should Turkey temporarily freeze such anti-Armenian strategic plans as the Turkey-Azerbaijan duo, Panturkism etc?

It should, because it isn’t easy to carry on a war or conflict on different fronts. And it’s not for every country, especially Turkey.
But if we approach the problem from the standpoint of the Armenian lands while Dersim and Alevis keep striving for independence, it is too early to speak about that. For them, however, it is advantageous to have Armenia as their neighbor, as that would open their way to the sea.
And what is all that likely to bring about inside Turkey? Is a war scenario possible? Turkey is not clearly going to wait in idleness. So what is the expected action?
A war, which is practically in progress. And Turkey even uses air equipment to suppress the rebels. But experience shows that a military pressure is not likely to solve the problem … So, what is Turkey going to do? To keep using pressure, annihilating and massacring people? But its chances to do that are becoming less and less, as there are powers interested in maintaining the domestic instability. Those are the forces that wouldn’t wish, for instance, the Iranian gas to reach the European market and become a rival to the Russian gas, i.e. – Gazprom. The Iraq-Syria route is now closed to keep Turkey in isolation; the other option is the Azerbaijan-Georgia route which may close at any moment in light of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The next remaining option is the Armenia-Georgia [route]. So there are different conflict forces here.

Interview: Vicken Cheterian: ‘Kurds replaced the Armenians’

August 18, 2015 By administrator

14:26, August 18, 2015

Journalist and historian Vicken Cheterian wrote a book which assesses the effects of Armenian genocide on global politics, academic research, Kurdish question, Turkish and Armenian societies during the process that has been going on for 100 years. Focusing mainly on the post genocide period, Open Wounds: Armenians, Turks, and a Century of Genocide considers Hrant Dink’s assassination as a milestone.

There are lots of books that tell and teach many things to you, but a book that can change the way you perceive and speed up the healing process of the society is a rare thing. Switzerland based journalist Vicken Cheterian’s newly published book Open Wounds: Armenians, Turks, and a Century of Genocide is a work that could trigger some radical changes. Chetarian considers the genocide as an event that still plays a role in today’s social and political environment, rather than a tragedy that happened in the past. And he emphasizes that this crime inflicts deep wounds not only locally, but also globally.

Putting forth that the genocide still continues with denial and the legitimization of crime and usurpation, Cheterian points out that there is 1915 behind many conflicts that is important for humanity, occurring not only in these lands but also in the whole world, such as democratization of Turkey, relations between Armenia and Turkey, Nagorno-Karabakh question and Kurdish question. And he emphasizes the importance of contending the genocide in order to “fight with the dark forces”. We got together with Chetarian and talked about the hundred years of the Armenian genocide; we asked him to evaluate some striking points in the book for the readers of Agos.

In your book on the process that has been going on since the Armenian genocide, you consider Hrant Dink’s assassination as a milestone. Why is that?

I never had the idea of writing such a book. Because reading about the Armenian genocide was very painful to me. Now I realize that I tried to avoid this history for very long time. Both of my parents were born in Turkey and I was born in Beirut and I grew up during the war. In this context, I didn’t want to be associated with the people who had been massacred, deported, whose culture and civilization was destroyed. Each time I tried to read memoirs, I really suffered.

The idea of this book came from my publisher in London. We were discussing about my previous book and then he asked me: “Why don’t you write something about the genocide?” I answered spontaneously: “I don’t know how to write about the genocide, because there are a lot of good books on it. But what I want to do is to write about post-genocide period and what the humanity has done with this heritage.”

Then I realized that this subject is very much related to the current situation in Turkey. For years, I had been following –and personally knowing– people like Taner Akçam, Ragıp Zarakolu and Hrant Dink. In this book, I wanted to discover what made the subject of genocide come into prominence. Why did the intellectuals in Turkey or some people suddenly discover that this subject is very important for them? What were the changes in Turkey that brought back this subject about Ottoman Armenians and the way they were destroyed? And why did it take this long? Which conditions caused the Turkish intellectuals, artists and poets, who were aware that something was missing in their country, to keep silent till 2000s?

I started the book not with the assassination of Hrant Dink but with his funeral, which made all these people walk in the street shouting “I am Hrant, I am Armenian.” I consider this as a revolution in the public opinion in Turkey.

There is another question I am asking; when there is a crime in a village, a country or a society, what happens next if people pretend that this crime didn’t happen? Does the crime disappear? What happens to the criminal and the victim? I am trying to look at the effects of this crime. At the beginning, I thought that I would be focusing mainly on the Armenians. The crime, which has not been recognized, is keeping them in the victim position for decades. We know when the Armenian genocide started, but we don’t know when it’s finished because it is not recognized yet. But in the end, what really amazed me was to discover how much this subject affects Turkey.

You talk about a kind of awakening of the intellectuals in Turkey. Perhaps Hrant Dink’s assassination is one of the most important events that triggered it. Do you think that the public followed these intellectuals as opinion leaders?

The first chapter of the book is about Hrant Dink. He really changed the public opinion in Turkey about the question of Armenians. Hrant Dink is also very important, because he is the first Armenian in Turkey after 1915, who claimed his position in the society as an Armenian intellectual. He wanted to talk freely about what he thinks and feels about this question instead of hiding. At the same time, he was very careful. He was aware of the red lines in Turkey. But once he assumed this role, he had to go beyond those red lines, which eventually led his assassination.

I think Hrant Dink is a historical figure, because he did something that no one else has ever dared to do. But then, there are also other people such as Ragıp Zarakolu, Taner Akçam and Hasan Cemal. Ragıp Zarakolu is very important, because for many years, he published books and created a field in Turkey where scholars, historians, intellectuals could talk about this issue. Even if people were against his ideas, they still had to react to the body of literature he created.

Another important character is Taner Akçam. He is the first Turkish scholar who dedicates himself to a research on Armenian genocide. I wanted to see what made or enabled Taner Akçam chose this way.

Hasan Cemal is symbolically very important, because he comes from the side of perpetrators –the people who took the decision to kill the whole ethnic group. Why did Hasan Cemal decide to write his book called ‘1915: Armenian Genocide’? How did his intellectual journey bring him there? I think those people are the pioneers. With their courage, they triggered a change. But we didn’t reach the end of this journey.

You also point out the silence of the Armenian society in Turkey and mention how this situation has been changing. Not only the Turkish society, but also the attitude of Armenian people is changing…

There are different types of silences among the Armenians. There is the traditional Armenian diaspora, which was silent for 50 years, till 1965. This silence was not only caused by their trauma, but also by the fact that no one was ready to listen to them yet. There were censored. For example, Franz Werfel’s book ‘The Forty Days of Musa Dagh’ was going to be a Hollywood movie in 1930s. But as a result of the pressure of Turkish government, the Hollywood studio that bought the rights eventually gave up shooting the movie. The Armenian diaspora who survived the genocide was not able to talk to anyone about it; they could have only talked to each other. I think Armenians are very vocal about the genocide now, because they were silenced for 50 years.

On the other hand, in the Soviet Union, there was another kind of silence, because Stalin repressed the memory of genocide. As a leader criminal himself, he didn’t want it to be commemorated, talked about and researched in his empire. There was also a strong alliance between the Soviet Union and Kemalist movement. Kemalist movement used to receive money, arms and weapons from the Soviet Union to fight against the French and British troops.

Finally, there is a longer silence within Turkey. Even within Turkey, there are different silences. Silence of the Armenians in Istanbul is different than the silence of the Armenians in Bitlis, Diyarbakır, Antep, and Islamized Armenians from the countryside of Anatolia. Now, there are a handful of people who are coming out and reclaiming their old Armenian identity and we don’t know how this process will evolve in the future.

In relation to this issue, you mention the Armenian origins of people in Hemşin, Rize in your book. In your opinion, how will revealing this kind of alternative narratives about the past affect the process?

Now, the process of democratization of Turkey and breaking down the wall of silence goes hand in hand. These people who were silenced for years will gradually come to light and reclaim their Armenian identity. However, it should be pointed out that they follow different path while doing that. For instance, I didn’t only reclaim the Armenian heritage in Diyarbakır and Gaziantep, but also I met with people who returned to Armenian Apostolic Church. Another group was researching their Armenian origins, but didn’t abandon Islam. In addition to this, there are people in Hemşin living in the highland of Northern Anatolia who protected their native language Armenian, though they were converted to Islam in 17th century. Even though they don’t want to convert to Christianity, their awareness about their Armenian past and cultural origin increases. And this is an extraordinary situation that defies the totalitarian ideology that repressed this nation during the dark 20th century.

What is happening in Turkey in 2015, the 100th year of genocide? What do you observe?

I think Turkey has moved forward, but it is still hesitating. Turkey will provide the justice when it feels ready. Once Turkey starts to respect its own citizens, then it will also be able to show respect to its former citizens that were systematically murdered. But Turkey is not there yet. It has moved away from the Kemalist model, but we don’t know where it’s going now.

The genocide doesn’t linger in the past; it is still with us. Although it happened 100 years ago, we haven’t got over this experience. Turkey accepts that something happened and there were victims. In April 2014, Prime Minister Erdoğan expressed his condolences to Armenians and this was the first time that a Turkish official recognized the sufferings of the Armenians. But still, it was a very strange way to recognize this, because the soldiers who died because they fought against each other or the murderers were put in the same position as the victims of the genocide. The act of killing can be either legitimate or a crime. I think the prime minister had failed to make a distinction between the crime and fight between the soldiers. Up to now, the Turkish officials have not taken the responsibility of the genocide.

Also the Turkish society has not reached the point to recognize that what happened in 1915 is important not only for the Armenians, but also for Turkey in general. Today, it is important to Armenians, Turks and Kurds in different ways. For Armenians, it is a matter of recognition and by stopping the pain, having a symbolic justice. Because genocide is so enormous that, there is no way for real justice. But for Turkey, it is a question of democracy. You cannot have democracy in this country, if the state considers massacring 100 thousand people and taking their property as legitimate. There can’t be rule of law in such a society.

What do you think is the next step for Turkey?

I think different power groups will recognize the importance of the genocide of Assyrians and Pontic Greeks along with the Armenian genocide in 1915. It is important not just for Armenians, Kurds and Turks but also for the humanity, because the global political culture has suffered enormously from this event. The level of our political has really dropped away. If we don’t recognize and attain the knowledge about what happened in the past, we will not be able to fight against those dark forces in all societies. So, in the next decade, we have to come together and figure out how we can fight together against those crimes that were committed in the past and will be committed in the future.

You think that the solution of problems with the Armenians is closely related to the problem with Kurds. There is a chapter in your book that is titled “Kurds: From Perpetrator to Victim”. In this chapter, you also write that the regions that the Armenians once lived became Kurdish territories in the historical context. Could we elaborate on that, considering the current political situation of the Kurdish Movement in Turkey?

I think this issue is related to the democratization and closely related to the Kurdish question in Turkey. It is also related to the relationship between Armenia and Turkey, and Nagorno-Karabakh question. When you dig deep enough, you find out that 1915 has been there and it has played a very negative role in all these issues. By fighting for the recognition of 1915, we also fight against this culture of justifying crimes against humanity.

The Kurdish question in Turkey emerged right after the destruction of Assyrians and Armenians that lived in the southeast region of Turkey. And this shows that the problems cannot be solved by resorting to violence, because violence creates a crime culture and leads to more suffering. There is a somewhat metaphysical aspect of Kurdish history: in 1915, they were perpetrators and they became victims in 1920. In many respects, Kurds replaced the Armenians. Even their demographical features are parallel to that of Ottoman Armenians. For instance, half of the society lives in the poorer east and the other half lives in the metropolis in the west. Today, Kurds are in the quest of rule of law instead of discrimination, just like the Armenians were in 19th century. The Armenians have lost in 1915, because their demand for reform was responded by destruction. I hope that the Kurds won’t be facing the same threat and become one of the main forces in the process of democratization of Turkey.

Agos

Mikhail Gorbachev: US Military an ‘Insurmountable Obstacle to a Nuclear-Free World’

August 6, 2015 By administrator

Interview Conducted by Joachim Mohr and Matthias Schepp,

An American nuclear missile facility in Montana: “This country would enjoy total military supremacy if nuclear weapons were abolished.”

In a SPIEGEL interview, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev discusses morals and politics in the nuclear age, the crisis in Russian-American relations and his fear that an atomic weapon will some day be used.

SPIEGEL: Mikhail Sergeyevich, during your inaugural speech as general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1985, you warned of nuclear war and called for the “complete destruction of nuclear weapons and a permanent ban on them.” Did you mean that seriously?

Gorbachev: The discussion about disarmament had already been going on for too long — far too long. I wanted to finally see words followed by action because the arms race was not only continuing, it was growing ever more dangerous in terms of the number of weapons and their destructive capacity. There were tens of thousands of nuclear warheads on different delivery systems like aircraft, missiles and submarines.

SPIEGEL: Did you feel the Soviet Union was under threat during the 1980s by the nuclear weapons of NATO member states?

Gorbachev: The situation was that nuclear missiles were being stationed closer and closer to our adversary’s borders. They were getting increasingly precise and they were also being aimed at decision-making centers. There were very concrete plans for the use of these weapons. Nuclear war had become conceivable. And even a technical error could have caused it to happen. At the same time, disarmament talks were not getting anywhere. In Geneva, diplomats pored over mountains of paper, drank wine, and even harder stuff, by the liter. And it was all for nothing.

SPIEGEL: At a meeting of the Warsaw Pact nations in 1986, you declared that the military doctrine of the Soviet Union was no longer to plan for the coming war, but rather to seek to prevent military confrontation with the West. What was the reason behind the shift in strategy?

Gorbachev: It was clear to me that relations with America and the West would be a lasting dead end without atomic disarmament, with mutual distrust and growing hostility. That is why nuclear disarmament was the highest priority for Soviet foreign policy.

SPIEGEL: Did you not also push disarmament forward because of the financial and economic troubles facing the Soviet Union in the 1980s?

Gorbachev: Of course we perceived just how great a burden the arms race was on our economy. That did indeed play a role. It was clear to us that atomic confrontation threatened not only our people but also all of humanity. We knew only too well the weapons being discussed, their destructive force and the consequences. The nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl provided us with a rather precise idea of what the consequences of a nuclear war would be. Decisive for us were thus political and ethical considerations, not economic ones.

SPIEGEL: What was your experience with US President Ronald Reagan, who many saw as a driving force in the Cold War?

Gorbachev: Reagan acted out of honest conviction and genuinely rejected nuclear weapons. Already during my first meeting with him in November of 1985, we were able to make the most important determination: “Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” This sentence combined morals and politics — two things many consider to be irreconcilable. Unfortunately, the US has since forgotten the second important point in our joint statement — according to which neither America nor we will seek to achieve military superiority.

SPIEGEL: Are you disappointed in the Americans?

Gorbachev: So many decades pass, but unfortunately some things do not change. Already back in the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower stated the problem by its name. The power of the military-industrial complex continued to be enormous under Reagan and his successor George Bush. Former US Secretary of State George Shultz told me a few years ago that only a conservative president like Reagan could have been in a position to get the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty through the Senate. Let’s not forget that the the “Zero Option” that Reagan himself proposed (eds. note: the proposal to remove all Soviet and American intermediate-range nuclear missles from Europe) had many opponents in the West. They considered it to be a propaganda stunt and they wanted to thwart Reagan’s policies. After the Reykjavik summit in 1986 (eds. note: the subject of the summit between Reagan and Gorbachev was nuclear disarmament), Margaret Thatcher declared: We won’t be able to handle a second Reykjavik.

SPIEGEL: Did you really believe at the time that you could achieve a world free of nuclear weapons?

Gorbachev: We not only proclaimed a nuclear weapons free world as a major goal — we also named concrete interim goals. In addition, we aspired to the destruction of chemical weapons and are now close to achieving that goal. Limiting conventional weapons was also on our agenda. That was all inextricably linked to a normalization of our relations. We wanted to move from confrontation to cooperation. We achieved a lot, which shows that my approach was completely realistic.

SPIEGEL: Many accused you of using your demand as a tactic to present the Soviet Union as a peace-loving country.

Gorbachev: No, there was no propaganda at play and it was not tactical. It was important to get away from the nuclear abyss our countries were marching toward when they stationed hundreds of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe.

SPIEGEL: Why were the negotiations over intercontinental ballistic missiles so much tougher than those over intermediate-range missiles?

Gorbachev: In Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986, Reagan and I not only established the framework for eliminating intermediate-range missiles, but also for halving the number of intercontinental missiles. But Reagan was up against strong resistance from the hawks in the US administration. This continued under Bush, so, in the end, we only finally signed the treaty in summer 1991. With the strategic long-range weapons there were also technical questions. And then we also had the problem with the missile defense.

SPIEGEL: You were unable to convince Reagan to abandon his SDI project, which aimed to create a defensive shield against nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. Did that upset you?

Gorbachev: Reagan wanted it no matter what. That’s why in Reykjavik we weren’t able to turn our agreements on intercontinental missiles and intermediate-range missiles into treaties. In order to break the impasse, we offered the Americans concessions and uncoupled the negotiating package. We agreed on a separate treaty addressing the intermediate-range missiles. Reagan and I signed it in Washington in December 1987.

SPIEGEL: The stationing of American intermediate-range missiles led to mass demonstrations by the peace movement in Germany …

Gorbachev: … and Helmut Kohl then played a very positive role in the establishment of the treaty with the elimination of the Pershing 1A missiles.

SPIEGEL: The nuclear warhead belonged to the Americans, but the missiles were German. Kohl declared that the missiles could be destroyed if the US and Russia came to an agreement on the destruction of the intermediate-range missiles.

Gorbachev: If Kohl had not dispensed with them, we would not have signed.

SPIEGEL: Was there actually resistance to your disarmament policies within the Soviet ruling elite?

Gorbachev: Every member of the leadership at the time understood the importance of disarmament. All the leading politicians had experience and a sober view of things. Just think about Foreign Minister Andrei Gromkyo …

SPIEGEL: … who had the nickname “Mr. Nyet” in the West because of his hardline negotiating tactics …

Gorbachev: … but like all the others, he understood how dangerous the arms race was. At the top, we were united at the time about ending it.

SPIEGEL: How did disarmament treaties materialize under your leadership?

Gorbachev: The Soviet Union had a strict and clear system for the preparation of politburo decisions. They happened through the so-called Five, a committee made up of representatives from relevant agencies and experts. We took into consideration the positions of our negotiating partners without jeopardizing the Soviet Union’s state security. The politburo weighed proposals and then issued directives to our negotiation delegations and also to me, the general secretary and later president, for summit meetings. That happened prior to Reykjavik in 1986, Washington in 1987 and other meetings. The politburo, in turn, fell back on proposals from experts, which it then reviewed and discussed.

SPIEGEL: Can the goal of a nuclear free world still be achieved today?

Gorbachev: It is the correct goal in any case. Nuclear weapons are unacceptable. The fact that they can wipe out the entirety of civilization makes them particularly inhumane. Weapons like this have never existed before in history and they cannot be allowed to exist. If we do not get rid of them, sooner or later they will be used.

SPIEGEL: In recent years, a number of new nuclear powers have emerged.

Gorbachev: That’s why we should not forget that the elimination of nuclear weapons is the obligation of every country that signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Though America and Russia have by far the largest arsenals at their disposal.

SPIEGEL: What do you think of the oft-cited theory that mutually assured destruction prevents nuclear wars?

Gorbachev: There’s a dangerous logic in that. Here’s another question: If five or 10 countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, then why can’t 20 or 30? Today, a few dozen countries have the technical prerequisites to build nuclear weapons. The alternative is clear: Either we move toward a nuclear-free world or we have to accept that nuclear weapons will continue to spread, step by step, across the globe. And can we really imagine a world without nuclear weapons if a single country amasses so many conventional weapons that its military budget nearly tops that of all other countries combined? This country would enjoy total military supremacy if nuclear weapons were abolished.

SPIEGEL: You’re talking about the US?

Gorbachev: You said it. It is an insurmountable obstacle on the road to a nuclear-free world. That’s why we have to put demilitarization back on the agenda of international politics. This includes a reduction of military budgets, a moratorium on the development of new types of weapons and a prohibition on militarizing space. Otherwise, talks toward a nuclear-free world will be little more than empty words. The world would then become less safe, more unstable and unpredictable. Everyone will lose, including those now seeking to dominate the world.

SPIEGEL: Is there a risk of war between Russia and the West over the crisis in Ukraine?

Gorbachev: We have reached a crossroads in relations between America and Russia. Many are already talking about a new Cold War. Talks between both powers over important global problems have practically been put on ice. That includes the question of nuclear disarmament. Trust, the very capital we worked so hard to build, has been destroyed.

SPIEGEL: Do you believe there is a danger of nuclear war?

Gorbachev: I’m very worried. The current state of things is scary. The nuclear powers still have thousands of nuclear warheads. Nuclear weapons are still stationed in Europe. The pace of reducing stockpiles has slowed considerably. We are witnessing the beginning of a new arms race. The militarization of space is a real danger. The danger of nuclear proliferation is greater than ever before. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has not entered into force, primarily because the Americans did not ratify it. This would have been extremely important.

SPIEGEL: Do you think Russia will once again begin to use its nuclear capablities as a bargaining chip in international relations?

Gorbachev: We have to view everything in context. Unfortunately, formulations have reappeared in the nuclear powers’ military doctrines that represent a relapse to the language that predated the Soviet-American declaration of 1985. We need a new declaration, probably from the United Nations Security Council, that reasserts nuclear war as inadmissible — it knows no winners.

SPIEGEL: Isn’t a world without nuclear weapons just a nice dream?

Gorbachev: No matter how difficult the situation is, we must not fall into resignation or panic. In the mid-1980s, there was no shortage of people who thought the train to atomic hell was unstoppable. But then we achieved a lot in very short space of time. Thousands of nuclear warheads were destroyed and several types of nuclear weapons, such as intermediate-range missiles, were disposed of. We can be proud of that. We accomplished all that together. It should be a lesson for today’s leaders: for Obama, Putin and Merkel.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Gorbachev, we thank you for this interview.

Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev

Mikhail Gorbachev was born in 1931 in the rural locality of Privolnoye in the northern Caucasus. He became a member of the Soviet Communist Party at the age of 21 and began a career as a functionary. From 1985 to 1991, he served as the general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the most powerful man in the country. With his policies of glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika (“restructuring”), he initiated the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 for his historic work.

Ambassador of Iran Discusses Iran-Armenia Relations, Hopes Iranian President Will Visit Armenia Soon

July 20, 2015 By administrator

A press conference on topic “Relations between Armenia and Iran” took place at the Media Center

YEREVAN (ARMENPRESS)—In an interview with Armenpress, Mohammad Raiesi, ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Armenia, discusses the recent deal struck between Iran and six global powers over Iran’s nuclear program, Iran-West relations, the importance of joint Armenian-Iranian projects, and a possible visit by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to Armenia.

Armenpress: Mr. Ambassador, a historic agreement was signed in Vienna which is being called by many analysts the agreement of the century.

Raiesi: Any event taking place in any country can be a turning point and a historical reality for that country. This agreement which was signed in Lausanne, then in Vienna, can be considered a historical one. For years, the West did everything to hurt Iran and by hurting Iran, the East also suffered losses. The agreement between Iran and the six world powers is important in many aspects.

First of all, Iran, not complying with the demands, resisted, and after overcoming many difficulties was finally able to reach an agreement with the other sides. Secondly, the worst and the most difficult problem can be solved through negotiations. Probably no one could imagine that such a serious problem could be solved by means of negotiations. Thus, these negotiations will get registered in the history of world diplomacy, it will be taught at schools and it’ll serve a good example for international conflict resolution.

As a result of this agreement, the United Nations Security Council’s seven resolutions and the sanctions against Iran are cancelled, and the right of uranium enrichment and nuclear research is officially entitled to Iran. The West claims that Iran made certain concessions in producing nuclear weapons in the case that Iran never had any aim of producing it. I hope that other international conflicts will be solved in this way.

Armenpress: There’s a viewpoint in Armenia that big Armenian-Iranian projects that require serious financial investments are not brought to life because of Western sanctions. Do you agree with this viewpoint?

Raiesi: Yes. I am of the opinion that if there were no sanctions, the projects would have been realized. One of the widely discussed projects is the construction of an Armenia-Iran railway.

Armenpress: The President of the Republic of Armenia spoke about the importance of the construction of the railway during the meeting at Ufa last week. What can we expect from this project?

Raiesi: The project has regional significance and in the case of its realization Armenia will become a regional transit corridor between the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf.

Transfers will be conducted to northern countries through Armenia from the southern neighbors of East Asia and Iran. It will become a north-south corridor. Goods from India, Pakistan will be transited through Armenia, including Europe. The project needs considerable investments. If there is a company that wants to implement the project it will be very good. For one part of the project (from Meghri to Sevan) $3,200,000,000 USD is needed. We have announced so many times that if there is an investor to allocate funds for the Armenian part of the project, we are ready to build up to 60 kilometers in our part. Like the President of the Republic of Armenia Serzh Sarkissian, I agree that this project is very important.

Armenpress: Mr. Ambassador, what are the Armenian-Iranian economic relations today? Is the growth of the trade turnover visible during the recent years?

Raiesi: Notwithstanding the high level of political relations between the two countries, the economic ties are considerably behind. It was intended that trade turnover reached 1 billion USD, but it does not exceed 300 million. One of the reasons for that are the laws. We should smooth these issues and facilitate conditions that help the businessmen of the two countries implement their businesses comfortably. There are countries with which Iran has signed agreements with preferential tariffs, and statistics show that after the signing of these agreements, the economic relations and trade turnover developed immediately. There are some very important issues with trade. One of them is the simplification of laws and transparency. Customs laws should be transparent. Iran has cooperated with Armenia for 22 years, but we still do not have an agreement on preferential tariffs. If Armenia and Iran also sign a visa-free regime agreement, it will also help develop tourism.

Armenpress: 2015 is a very important year for Armenia. We commemorated the centennial of the Armenian Genocide. Iran is among the countries that has not yet officially recognized the Armenian Genocide. Why?

Raiesi: We always honor the memory of the victims and on April 24 the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran attended the commemoration events in Yerevan. We respect the memory of the victims. We always condemn the massacre of innocent people.

Armenpress: When can we expect the visit of President Hassan Rouhani to Armenia?

Raiesi: We hope that the visit will take place this year. I cannot say the concrete time right now. Works are carried out in this direction. In the nearest future the visit of the First Vice President to Armenia is expected and after that we will be consistent for the visit of Mr. Rouhani.

German Sterligov To Start Eco-Friendly Food Production in Nagorno-Karabakh

July 13, 2015 By administrator

Russian billionaire German Sterligov (Source: Armenpress)

STEPANAKERT (Combined Sources)—During a press conference held in Shushi on Monday, Russian billionaire and businessman German Sterligov announced that he intends to start production of eco-friendly food in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, according to Armenpress, citing Artsakhpress. Sterligov added that food will later be exported to Russia.

Sterligov described Nagorno-Karabakh as a wonderful place for producing affordable and eco-friendly food, and thinks that a trade house between Nagorno-Karabakh and Russia should be established through which the food can be exported to Russian markets without added chemical elements.

“If people in Russia try the food produced here, they will no longer use the food with chemical additions which is sold there,” Sterligov said.

Sterligov, his wife and five children left Russia for Artsakh three weeks ago. He plans on returning to Moscow on Thursday, showing journalists his air ticket during the press conference.

Sterligov revealed that his decision to move to Artskah came after he received repeated threats in Russia, specifically for his alleged activity with the Combat Organization of Russian Nationalists (BORN),a Russian ultranationalist gang, which he denies.

The only person he knows from BORN is Ilya Goryachev, said Sterligov. The leader of the organization reportedly asked the billionaire for money to start a pro-Russian Patriarch magazine, but Sterligov refused.

Sterligov also said that he initially wanted to leave for Belarus, but decided to stay in Artsakh. He expressed his admiration for the hospitality and kindness of the people there.

Sterligov hopes to return to Artsakh after cooperating with law-enforcement agencies in Russia in order to establish a farm and a fashion house, according to reports.

In related news, Azerbaijan has threatened journalists who attended the press conference in Shushi, saying that they will appear on Azerbaijan’s notorious black list for illegally entering Azerbaijan’s Armenian-occupied territories.

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Affairs Ministry earlier declared the Russian singer Ljuba Kazarnovskaya an “undesirable person” for teacing master classes at the Stepanakert State Music College. Commenting on this, the singer said, “I am in the same list with Montserrat Caballé and I am proud of it. The Nagorno Karabakh Republic is a great place, where I took young people. I am not concerned. As long as there is aggression in the world, no peace will reign. Here, in Karabakh, people want peace.”

The Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan started publishing its black list in 2013. The blacklist of foreigners who are banned from entering Azerbaijan includes individuals who visit the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh without making an agreement with Azeri authorities. Sterligov was also recently added to the list, which grows every year.

Armenian Media Today: Q&A with Gegham Vardanyan

July 13, 2015 By administrator

By Kai Prager, Senior Media Relations Specialist, Business Wire Frankfurt

Armenia is a country with an ancient cultural heritage that once reached from the Mediterranean to the Caspian Sea. It also was the first country to adopt Christianity in 301 AD.

To strengthen the statehood and instructing the people in the news religion, the Armenian alphabet was introduced around 405 AD by Mesrop Mashtots and the first media was produced Many of these old scripts still exist and are collected in the Matenadaran, the repository of ancient manuscripts in Armenia’s capital, Yerevan.

The first Armenian printing establishment was founded in Venice in 1565 and focused on religious texts; it was later moved to Istanbul. The first newspaper was published in Madras, India, in 1646, but it took another 60 years before Armenian papers and journals were printed in Armenia. As part of the USSR, most Soviet-era publications were in Russian; however, in the 1980s, there was a language and cultural revival that sparked an increase in journalistic activity. After independence, Armenia developed its own press laws. Though some media enterprises failed, more publications were founded that are still in circulation today, like Aravot, Yerkir, or AZG

The Internet began to spread with the beginning of the 21^st Century and online media was developed. report businesswire

To find out more about the development of online media and other trends of the Armenian media market,we asked Gegham Vardanyan, producer of Media.am, a project of the Media Initiatives Center, to give us an overview:

1. The media market in Armenia is small. Which effect does it have on the media landscape?
Armenia is a small country; the actual population figure barely reaches 3 million. This doesn’t prevent us from having, for example, a large number of TV channels. For instance, there are 14 TV channels broadcast in Yerevan alone. There are many daily newspapers, but the print media is experiencing a crisis: print runs barely reach 5,000. In addition, newspapers are printed 5 times a week: there are no newspapers on Sunday or Monday.

Online media is well developed. News websites usually publish in three languages: Armenian, English, and Russian.

Despite the quantity I mentioned, it’s not always that the same TV station offers diverse TV products for its viewers, especially in terms of news. Armenian news outlets are not wealthy, and few have their own correspondents, not even in Moscow or Washington. In order to keep abreast of international news, Armenian news outlets often make use of different news agencies, especially Russian sources.

2. Who owns the classic media outlets, like publishing houses, broadcasting stations, etc.? Does it interfere with journalistic work?

There is the Public TV and Radio Company of Armenia, which is completely financed by the state budget.

The matter of media ownership, by and large, is a problem. In many cases, large media holdings are Closed Joint-Stock Companies (CJSC). The law allows neither members of the public to apply to the state registry to receive the names of stockholders nor requires media companies to make the names of stockholders public.

Gegham Vardanyan. Photo by Sona Kocharyan.

Some of the private stations belong to politicians and businessmen close to the government. Though the law officially prohibits political parties from owning TV channels, four parliamentary parties have a huge influence on four different TV stations and the public knows this. This, of course, has a direct effect on the work of these TV channels.

3. How did the move to digital media change the Armenian media landscape?
News websites in Armenia that operate according to the convergent newsroom model are advanced. Leading websites offer their readers not only text, but also high-quality photos, video, and live video coverage of developing news.

The most widespread social networking site is the Russian Odnoklassniki, though for discussions on social and political topics, the main platform is Facebook.

Though there is a lack of professionalism in the Armenian media landscape, the increasing number of news websites ensure media pluralism and are relatively more free (i.e. less controlled) than broadcast and, to a lesser extent, print media.

4. What sources do journalists usually use to access information?
In Armenia, journalists use press releases. There are 5–6 press clubs that host press conferences on different issues every day. Republishing content from local news outlets without permission, as well as translating from various foreign media, is extremely widespread.

5. Which topics are most popular in the media?
Here, the picture is the same as in the rest of the world. The most popular topics are crimes, celebrities, and sports, especially football. From political topics, of interest are news on the Karabakh conflict, when the situation on the Armenia-Azerbaijani border is tense. In general, developing news are of interest.

But the overall picture is different on different websites. For example, the top 5 most read stories in 2014 of a few leading news websites in Armenia were drastically different.

6. Do you have any tips for people who would like to reach media, or journalists in Armenia?
You can read about Armenia’s media in a few industry websites, such as the Media Initiatives Center, Media.am (a project of the Media Initiative Center), and the Yerevan Press Club. See also the database of Armenian media outlets and professionals on the Yerevan Press Club website, as well as the Media Map on Media.am, which is organized by region (for example, see here for Yerevan).

Journalists in Armenia can be reached through social media. They are active primarily on Facebook, though also on Twitter.

Note: Adrineh Der-Bogossian helped Gegham Vardanyan with the English text.

Click here to share this media relations tip on Twitter: How to Work with Armenian Media: A Q&A with Gegham Vardanyan: http://ctt.ec/7j2V9

Stay up to date with the latest news and trends impacting today’s communications programming. Join our mailing list today!

The international community has to unite efforts to prevent new crimes against humanity: Armenian FM

July 6, 2015 By administrator

By Siranush Ghazanchyan

Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian‬‘s interview with Brazilian newspaper “‪‎Estadão‬”

“Estadão”: I would like to ask you at the beginning with the more general question, I think this is the main question right now. It is regarding the 100-years Anniversary of Genocide. So, I’d like to ask you how important was this date, this time for the efforts of international recognition of Genocide?

Edward Nalbandian: The main message of the commemoration of the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide is “Never again”. The recognition of the Armenian Genocide is important not only for Armenia or the Armenian nation, it is important for the international community to prevent new crimes against humanity, new genocides. And that’s why the recognition and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide, as well as other genocides is of utmost importance. Maybe it would be possible to prevent other crimes against humanity if the Armenian Genocide was duly recognized and condemned hundred years ago.

“Estadão”: You think something we’ve seen already nowadays could be avoided?

Edward Nalbandian: Yes, I think so. After the Armenian Genocide the world witnessed Shoa, Genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia, Darfur, other places. The international community has to unite efforts to prevent new crimes against humanity. On March 27th the new resolution on Genocide prevention, initiated by Armenia, was adopted in the UN’s Human Rights Council in Geneva, co-authored by 72 countries, including Brazil. And the resolution passed by consensus. Almost every two years we are initiating such resolutions with the aim to consolidate different mechanisms of prevention. It is important that the resolution was adopted on the eve of the commemoration of the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide.

This April the European Parliament adopted a special resolution on the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide with a strong message. This was not the first time that the European Parliament recognizes it, but the new resolution contains a very clear and strong message to Turkey to come to terms with its past, to recognize the Armenian genocide and thus pave the way for a genuine reconciliation between Turkish and Armenian peoples.

It is very important that new countries are recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Here I would like to emphasize very important steps made by Germany and Austria: the first on the level of President and second on the level of Parliament. I mean statements of German President and the Austrian parliament, not only recognizing the Armenian Genocide, but also mentioning their part of responsibility for what has happened 100 years ago. While Germany and Austria are talking about their part of responsibility, Turkey – the successor of the Ottoman Empire continues to its policy of denial.

“Estadão”: In this context we have this resolution from the Brazilian Senate.

Edward Nalbandian: Very important one. It is the first step and we hope that it will be completed by other steps to recognize the Armenian Genocide on the State level in Brazil.

Here, I’d like to stress the importance and moral significance of the statement made by his Holiness the Pope on the Armenian Genocide during the special Mess organized in Holy See this April. Then just after the Mess, the journalists asked me how I would comment on the reaction of the Turkish Government, I didn’t know yet about their reaction because I was at the mess. And I asked back the journalists what was their reaction. They said Turkish side criticized harshly…

“Estadão”: As usual.

Edward Nalbandian: I said: it is the problem of Turkey, not of His Holiness. His Holiness is representing 1bn. 200 m. Catholics of the world, he is a spiritual leader of this very important part of the world population. Ankara is criticizing the European Parliament, because of its resolution on the Armenian Genocide, is calling back its Ambassadors from those countries, which recognized the Armenian Genocide, as they did after Brazilian Senate’s resolution.

“Estadão”: Yes, and you think that this has some political change right now with Turkey. Do you think this will affect somehow, have some effect, some impact for Armenia, if the…

Edward Nalbandian: You know, by the initiative of our President we started very important process of normalization of our relations with Turkey. We had several rounds of negotiations and we came to the agreement on two documents – two protocols, which were signed in Zurich on October 10th, 2009.

But the Turkish side rejected to ratify and to implement those two protocols. And the position, the stance of the international community was and is very clear, that the ball is in the Turkish court. You have to respect the main principle of the international relations – the principle of pacta sunt servanda – you have to respect reached agreements and to implement them. The Turkish side made step back. What will happen in the future? I’m sure that sooner or later, of course, we have to turn the page together…

“Estadão”: Sure.

Edward Nalbandian: ...But not with the policy of denial. It is very clear, that Armenia will never question the fact of the Armenian Genocide and the importance of its recognition. Look how many countries and how many international organizations recognized the Armenian Genocide. And Turkey is pretending that it was not happened, that it was not genocide.

“Estadão”: Is the same position for years?

Edward Nalbandian: Unfortunately, yes.

“Estadão”: You were in Damascus. I’d like to ask you regarding Syria, Diaspora, Armenian-Syrian Diaspora. I know there is a… Can you comment a little bit on how is the situation of Syrian-Armenians?

Edward Nalbandian: Armenians in Syria are a part of the Syrian people, which is in a very difficult situation today. And I think in order to find a way out of this situation it is essential, first of all, to stop military hostilities, secondly to conduct a dialogue between all political groups in Syria without exclusion, third, to respect the rights of the minorities, including the Christian minorities, including the Armenian minority, fourth – to unite efforts to combat terrorism and terrorist groups. Terrorism in the Middle East with so called ISIS, Al-Nusra, other groups represents real danger not only for minorities, Christians, but in general for the peoples of the Middle East and beyond. The international community must to join efforts in their fight against terrorism.

“Estadão”: Right now the government has dealing with the situation that there are lots of Syrian-Armenians, the diaspora coming back to Armenia, right?

Edward Nalbandian: Yes, we have about 14000 Syrian-Armenians now in Armenia. In some other countries you may have much more refugees, but for small Armenia it is a very big number.

And of course we are trying to help those who are coming to Armenia. But still we have many Armenians, tens of thousands living in Syria, including in Aleppo. It is very difficult to say the exact number. That’s why our Consulate General has never stopped to operate in Aleppo and now it is the only diplomatic mission working there. Of course we have also our Embassy in Damascus.

Our information on what is going on in this country comes not only through our Embassy and Consulate General but also from Armenians living in Syria.

“Estadão”: Regarding the diaspora, now I would like to change for Russia. There is very important community of Armenians in Russia as one of the main community. I would like to ask you if the last few months or … since the Crisis in Ukraine and US and also European sanctions against Russia that it has been affecting its economy. I would like to ask if Armenia, Armenian economy have been somehow affected by the consequences of this economic situation in Russia?

Edward Nalbandian: When we talk about the consequences, we have to say that there are consequences not only on Russia, and those countries, that have strong economic relations with Russia, but also on those, who decided to impose sanctions against Russia, all they are affected.

We consider that all issues should be treated and addressed through dialogue, through negotiations, not through using force, including economic coercion.

On Diaspora. Yes, we have very big Armenian community in Russia, about 2 and half million. We have about 500.000 Armenians living in Ukraine as well.

“Estadão”: Regarding another neighbour of Armenia, how would I say, a friend country. Yesterday I saw lots of tracks with Iranian license plates on the way to Tatev – in the South. There are lots of good economic ties with Iran. So I would like to ask you in your view, in Armenian government’s view, how do you see, how do you expect the deal regarding Nuclear Problem of Iran? How do you see this deal with Iran?

Edward Nalbandian: Armenia was among first, if not the first country, which welcomed the framework agreement on Iranian Nuclear issue, negotiated by Iran and 6 countries and we hope very much that the solution could be found until the end of this month as it is expected or in the nearest future, and will bring a comprehensive settlement of this issue which will be in the interests of not only of Iran and neighboring countries, but also entire region and even wider. So we hope very much that the solution could be found and the countries of the region could have more possibilities for economic and trade relations.

“Estadão”: I have talked to some people here and I met very interesting historian, Professor in Armenia. He was talking to me, explaining to me regarding to the Genocide the role of the people who fight in the Genocide in self-defense in some places against the Ottoman troops like in Van, in Musa Ler… He was telling me that to suggest also when we remember the Genocide and the Genocide victims also remember those who play role in self-defense. How do you see how the Government see this request to change the name of remembrance of victims also for remembrance of victims and heroes. Is something working on this?

Edward Nalbandian: Our Church, Armenian Apostolic Church decided to canonize the 1.5 million victims of the Armenian Genocide this April 23rd on the eve of the Centennial and we consider the victims of the Armenian Genocide as martyrs, as saints. Of course, our nation remembers its heroes.

“Estadão”: I would like to ask you about the relationship with Brazil. Which points, which issues are more important by now between bilateral relationship and where do you expect to be more expanded, to become bigger the relationship?

Edward Nalbandian: I think that we have a big potential to be explored by our joint efforts, but I don’t think that much has been done till now.

We have an embassy since 2011 in your beautiful country and you have the Embassy in Armenia since 2006. We have established also a Consulate General in San Paolo since 1998. We paid several visits from Armenia, including on the level of the President, on the level of the chairman of the Parliament, on the level of different ministers, including of Foreign Affairs. I visited your country for the inauguration of President Dilma Rousseff in January 2011. And of course, I had an opportunity also to meet with my colleague former Foreign Minister. He promised to visit Armenia but that never happened.

“Estadão”: And now?

Edward Nalbandian: We hope very much to expand our bilateral cooperation. We hope to consolidate the legal framework of our relations. The volume of our economic and trade relations is small. With many countries, which are several times smaller than Brazil we have much more trade and economic exchanges.

We hope very much that from the Brazilian side also some concrete steps will be done to enhance, to deepen our cooperation and partnership in all possible fields. From our side we are very interested and we expressed our interest many times and as a Foreign Minister I could confirm again that we are looking forward to have really strong partnership with Brazil. We have more economic and trade cooperation with Argentina, than with Brazil. Geographically we are far from Latin America, but geographically Argentine is not much closer, than Brazil.

“Estadão”: Especially considering the size of the Armenian community in San Paolo in Brazil, it is the second one in Latin America.

Edward Nalbandian: Yes, this is also an important factor. Armenian community is playing a bridge role in our relations and could play more active role in deepening our cooperation in different dimensions. There are tens of thousands of Armenian living in Brazil, most of them in San Paolo. Two third of our people lives in in hundred countries of the world Armenia is a small country in this geographical part of the world, but we have many Armenians all over the world, we have hundred “Armenias” in the world.

AGOS NEWSPAPER To question the official discourse is the way to recognition

May 17, 2015 By administrator

Raymond Kevorkian’s book “The Armenian Genocide”, a leading book in its field, was published in Turkish by the Iletisim publishing house. In addition to the genesis of this test, we talked with Raymond Kevorkian of Turkey’s policies towards the Genocide.

Last week we talked with his translator Ayşen Taşkent Ekmekçi the translation process and the significance of this book for society in Turkey. What is perhaps most remarkable in the book of Kevorkian, who insists on the stages of genocide since the late 19th century until the founding of the Republic of Turkey is that you’ll see various correspondence testimonies and detailed presentation of the places where the massacres took place, region by region, with the lists of perpetrators and victims of these massacres … In addition to the genesis of the book, we discussed with the policies of Kevorkian Turkey to the Genocide.

Can you tell us how the idea for this book came to you? How long have you spent to conduct the research and the drafting?

This kind of work always takes place over a long period. One must first master the subject and sources, and this is not always easy to achieve. The book’s structure is gradually taking shape. Overall, the preparation of this trial took place over more than twenty years. I started by studying the demographic situation of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and their presence throughout the territory of the Ottoman Empire. This has been the publication of a book that was also published in Turkey there are three years (with Paul Paboudjian ‘1915 Oncesinde Osmanli Imparatortugu’nda Ermeniler [The Armenians in the Ottoman Empire on the eve of 1915], Aras Publishing House). Known aspects of the Genocide were also revealed it, such as “second phase” of the Genocide, that is to say the slow death of the deportees to concentration camps in Syria and Mesopotamia. However, I have decided to publish this book when I finally had access to exceptionally rich archives of the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul (preserved to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem). The study of these documents one by one took two years and I also spent two years writing the actual book.

What was your main motivation for writing a book so complete?

It was clear that the genocidal process had never been studied in depth. My first intention was, on the basis of previous studies on the Armenian presence in Anatolia, to make available to the public, especially to the one who originated or who lives there now a way to help them understand what happened in 1915. That is why I presented a geography of the region Genocide by region. Such micro-history was necessary to carry out this work. But isolating the event was clearly out of the question. I felt it was important to put the events in the Ottoman context. We had to find a balance between the presentation of the fate of the victims and of the intentions of the authors of the Genocide. In addition to the variety of available sources, it was essential to take into account the testimonies of survivors, but by submitting them to filter historical criticism.

What was the reaction in France when the book came out in 2006?

The public, including the Armenians of the second and third generation, has expressed an interest in this book to understand what had happened to their parents, or in other words, how and why they found themselves in France. The book answers questions that many posed to themselves. Historians have also shown interest in this test, which was the result of the work of a historian trained in the French school of historians. The book could also help to erase the remaining doubts in the mind of some historians, still prone Turcologists individuals to align with the official line, despite its dubious credibility, taking over the propaganda of history.

While you were doing your research, what were the differences that have most struck you, considering the regions in which took place on Genocide?

The most remarkable aspect, there’s no doubt, this is the level of planning that gave rhythm to the deportations, which essentially took place in just three months, from June to August 1915. While the methods employed for organizing the deportation convoys are almost identical, we note that in the case of families from Western Anatolia, the head of family was present; by cons, in the provinces of the east, a priority, obviously, for the Turkish authorities young, male adults were executed and the women and children deported without any protection.

What are the main players in the genocide, and what were the relations between them during the genocide?

As for the authors, the ten members of the Central Party of Union and Progress Committee are clearly the key-makers, planners, and are those that have implemented this act of mass violence. These characters, on one hand, had founded the Special Organization ‘Teşkilat Mahsusa-i), the main tool for the destruction of the Armenians to put their dirty work execution, while the other, they managed to involve their actions in local government, which would assume responsibility for compliance with the deportation program.

What does the publication of this book in Turkey important?

This is not the first book published in Turkey on Genocide. However, by its very structure, which not only aims to observe facts from Istanbul, the capital, but also from the provinces, I hope it will be of interest to people living in the affected provinces violence, since these events are part of local history or that of their own family. For each region, with the lists prepared by the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople, it is possible to give us the name of the key-characters involved: members of the local organization of Union and Progress, officials of commissions of abandoned goods (Emval- Metruke i) senior officials, police officers, police commissioners, the Special Organization officers (Teşkilat Mahsusa-i), etc., who participated at different levels in the extermination of the Armenian population. I doubt that the descendants of these people can remain indifferent on this subject. This test will probably help students and intellectuals readers to get an idea of the circumstances that gave rise to contemporary Turkey.

What is your assessment of Turkey’s policy on this subject since the founding of the Republic of Turkey?

Note first of all that there is an ideological extension of Union and Progress Committee. The Kemalist regime has managed to homogenize Anatolia demographically by using various methods including assassinations, expulsions, deportations and tax measures, aimed not only the Armenian Genocide survivors, but also the Greeks and Assyrians. Moreover, historians are aware that political and military leaders builders of modern Turkey were, to varying degrees, involved in the extermination of the Armenians, and gave birth to a singular political culture that continues to influence leaders. Under these conditions, the way for the recognition of this history of violence on which the Republic was founded, through the questioning of the principles of the new nation wanted by Turkish Youth and questions to ask themselves about what was done grandparents; or in short, as was the case with the Kurds for decades, to object to the modus operandi of the political machine which, again and again, stigmatizes and excludes all groups that do not flow in the mold of the identity imposed.

For all these reasons, I do not count on rapid transformation of the policy of the Turkish state. Perhaps the change does come from civil society, victim himself, somehow, politics of the state.

“The official denial, although slightly more diplomatic, continuous”

2007, the year of the murder of Hrant Dink, a milestone for Turkish-Armenian. What do you think of the years that followed?

Hrant Dink long and hard about how to get out of the death trap of stigma to a specific community. His statements, as we know, everyone has sometimes provoked strong reactions in the Armenian community, but they have undoubtedly contributed to the maturation of the concept of dialogue – the term reconciliation appears inappropriate for now. His murder and the reactions that followed undoubtedly forced the most radical circles to silence and many friends decided to get more involved in the fight for memory, for a change of the ideology that still permeates deeply Turkey and its state apparatus. Since then, a positive dialogue has emerged in some segments of the Armenian and Turkish civil societies. Obviously, a huge amount of work remains to be done to inform the public and assist in the dissemination of critical views, to convince the public that this process leads to a democratic future for Turkey.

How do you rate the state policy towards the Armenian Genocide from 2006 to today?

Since the entry of Turkey in the accession negotiations to the European Union, it is undeniable that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide has become, even if it is not explicitly written in any document, an essential political condition for the possible integration of Turkey into the EU. The authorities know this very well and have taken some initiatives to create a better image of the country: the restoration of Akhtamar, whose name was Turkified and whose church is topped by a huge Turkish flag, the proposal of the creation of a commission of historians, or rather propagandists that are expected to discuss a topic they have no comprehensive knowledge, are examples. It is believed that some Turkish authorities are considering the next concession to make. An eventual step back from the state directly depend on the pressure exerted by civil society in Turkey, and also from the outside.

What are the differences and similarities in government policy between 1915 and today in the light of current events in the Middle East?

As I said earlier, there is a continuity in the ideological apparatus of the state. Violent practices, the lack of political dialogue, a stubborn refusal to accept the difference of those whose identities other than the official identity complicate the solution of an issue as the Kurdish question. We are now seeing for several months the ambiguous position of the Turkish authorities towards the IE. The main reason, at least for observers who know the area, is that for Turkey, the Kurdish question overcomes priority threats posed by the EI for the Middle East as a whole. We return every time this ideology of exclusion that exists since 1915; a dangerous nationalism that diplomacy strives to compensate.

Maral Dink

05/04/2015

http://www.agos.com.tr/en/article/11166/questioning-official-discourse-is-the-path-to-recognition

Translation Gilbert Béguian