Gagrule.net

Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide

Video: an Interview with Armenian Honorary Consul in Bangkok Thailand

By

Honorary Consul of the Republic of Armenia, Arto Artinian, Bangkok

Honorary Consul of the Republic of Armenia, Arto Artinian, Bangkok

By Wally Sarkeesian

I had the pleasure of Meeting and interviewing the Armenian Honorary Consul in Bangkok, Arto Artinian he is very dynamic full of energy engage with every aspect of promoting Armenian and Armenian cause and spread awareness about our Armenian identity,. beside running a successful jewelry Business, he host the consulate on his own business premises, He also maintaining

The Armenian – Thai Chamber of Commerce and actively involve in promoting Armenian product and services such as IT.

Armenian community of Thailand

The Armenian community of Thailand is an agile and dynamic community consisting of career professionals and their respective families who have chosen Thailand for their short or long term residence. The community is primarily centered in the capital city of the Kingdom of Thailand, as well as boasting a notable presence of Armenians in the coastal city of Pattaya.

It is one of the relatively newer communities of the Armenian diaspora, and is perhaps one of Asia’s noticeable communities in terms of year on year growth in numbers and in terms of collective vibrancy.

Besides the Consulate of the Republic of Armenia, the Armenian community of Thailand is also represented by the Armenian Thai Chamber of Commerce, connected on facebook group: Armenian Community Of Thailand and on a Google+ group: Sirely Hayer Google plus page.

For more information visit Website. www.armenianconsulatethailand.com

The Armenian – Thai Chamber of Commerce

The Armenian – Thai Chamber of Commerce is an organization which is established in the Kingdom of Thailand by Honorary Consul and Armenian – Thai Chamber of Commerce President Arto Artinian, in accordance to the rules and regulations of the Chamber of Commerce of Armenia. The Executive Committee consists of Armenian professionals living and working in Thailand.

The Chamber works to promote bilateral Armenian – Thai trade relationships and assists Armenian businessmen to source their products as well as establish their businesses in Thailand. The essential objective of the Armenian – Thai Chamber is to improve the trade and industry relations between Thailand and Armenia, as well as support Armenian businesses from Diaspora (Armenians in Asia, Middle East, US, Europe and Australia) who are visiting Thailand for business purposes.

Armenian – Thai Chamber of Commerce affiliated member businesses are intended to be in the gem and jewelry industry, gemstone manufacturing, hospitality, tourism, finance, construction, business consultancy, garments and textiles, industrial manufacturing, auto spare parts, as well as individual members who are professionals working in multinational companies.

The Armenian – Thai Chamber also keeps in touch with Asian based Armenian business communities in Singapore, Hong Kong and China, updating them on new business opportunities in Thailand as well as relevant business updates.

In Thailand, The Armenian – Thai Chamber also acts as a link between all other foreign chambers of Thailand, informing the Armenian community members living in Thailand, about the various networking, Educational, Business and Cultural events organized by the various co-Chambers and associations.

As part of its membership of the Joint Foreign Chamber Of Commerces in Thailand JFCCT, the Armenian – Thai Chamber has hosted in 2010 and 2013 the official, executive level Luncheon of all other foreign Chambers of Thailand updating them on the current Economic situation and Trade possibilities of and with the Republic of Armenia.

Genocidaire Talaat’s Last Interview Shortly Before his Assassination

By

Mehmet_Talat_Pasha

mastermind of the Armenian Genocide, Talaat

BY HARUT SASSOUNIAN

Aubrey Herbert, British diplomat, adventurer, intelligence officer, and Member of Parliament, conducted a rare interview with Talaat Pasha, in February 1921, just days before his assassination in Berlin by Soghomon Tehlirian.

As all-powerful Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire, its despotic ruler and mastermind of the Armenian Genocide, Talaat had fled Turkey in November 1918 to avoid prosecution by the new regime. The 23-page interview with Talaat was published in 1924 (London) and 1925 (New York) in Herbert’s memoirs titled, “Ben Kendim: A Record of Eastern Travel.”

Herbert first met Talaat in 1908 while stationed at the British Embassy in Constantinople (Istanbul). Eleven years later, Herbert received an unexpected letter from Talaat seeking a meeting with him “in any neutral country.” Desperately seeking to rehabilitate his diabolical image in the West, Talaat claimed that “he was not responsible for the Armenian massacres, that he could prove it, and that he was anxious to do so.” Herbert turned down Talaat’s request telling him: “I was very glad to hear that it was not he who was responsible for the Armenian massacres, but that I did not think any useful purpose could be served by our meeting at that time.”

However, Herbert reversed his decision in February 1921, after Sir Basil Thomson, Director of British Intelligence, ordered him to leave immediately for Germany and meet Talaat. The secret rendezvous took place on February 26, in the small German town of Hamm.

Talaat told Herbert again that “he himself had always been against the attempted extermination of the Armenians.” More incredibly, Talaat claimed that “he had twice protested against this policy, but had been overruled, he said, by the Germans.”

Forgetting his own claims of innocence in the massacres, Talaat justified the mass killings by accusing Armenians of stabbing his country in the back during the war. Contradicting himself again, Talaat declared his support for Armenians by claiming that “he was in favor of granting autonomy to minorities in the most extended form, and would gladly consider any proposition that was made to him.”

Talaat then switched the blame to the British for the Armenian killings: “You English cannot divest yourselves of responsibility in this matter. We Young Turks practically offered Turkey to you, and you refused us. One undoubted consequence has been the ruin of Christian minorities, whom your Prime Minister has insisted on treating as your allies. If the Greeks and Armenians are your allies when we are at war with you, you cannot expect our Turkish Government to treat them as friends.”

Herbert and Talaat then decided to move to Dusseldorf, Germany, where they continued their discreet conversation for two more days. Herbert reported Talaat’s paradoxical attempt to cover up his role in the Armenian Genocide, while justifying this heinous crime. Talaat stated that “he had written a memorandum on the Armenian massacres which he was very anxious that British statesmen should read. Early in the war, in 1915, the Armenians had organized an army, and had attacked the Turks, who were then fighting the Russians. Three Armenian deputies had taken an active part; the alleged massacres of Moslems had taken place, accompanied by atrocities on women and children. He had twice opposed enforced migration, and he had been the author of an inquiry which resulted in the execution of a number of guilty Kurds and Turks.”

Ironically, Talaat boldly told Herbert that he was not afraid of being assassinated. “He said that he never thought of it. Why should anyone dislike him? I said that Armenians might very well desire vengeance, after all that had been written about him in the papers. He brushed this aside.” Two weeks later, Talaat was assassinated in Berlin by Soghomon Tehlirian!

Concluding his interview of Talaat, Herbert observed: “He died hated, indeed execrated, as few men have been in their generation. He may have been all that he was painted — I cannot say. I know that he had rare power and attraction. I do not know whether he was responsible or not for the Armenian massacres.”

Only experts of that time period can verify the authenticity and accuracy of this lengthy interview. If true, what exactly were Talaat’s aims in proposing “an Anglo-Turkish alliance” and why was the British government so anxious to talk to him?

Interview: Vicken Cheterian: ‘Kurds replaced the Armenians’

By

14:26, August 18, 2015

62127Journalist 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

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

By

Edward-Nalbandian-888-620x300By

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.

France: Interview with Valerie Boyer: We will not yield to Turks’ threats

By

By Anna Ghazaryan

National Assembly of France Valerie Boyer.

National Assembly of France Valerie Boyer.

Armenian News-NEWS.am presents an exclusive interview with member of the National Assembly of France Valerie Boyer.

Madame Boyer, will you visit Armenia on April 24 to attend the events on the occasion of the centennial of the Armenian Genocide?

I have visited Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh several times on the occasion of April 24 events. This year, despite the requests to attend events in Yerevan, I decided to stay in Marseille. Senator of Marseille Jean Claude Gaudin devoted 2015 to Armenia. In this context the city will host numerous cultural events referring to Armenia and Armenians. On April 24 the municipality of Marseille and the municipalities of all districts will turn into the colors of Armenia. So, I chose to stay with the French of Armenian descent to show them my support and commitment.

Besides, together with Blue Cross of the Armenia’s of France (ARS France), I organized tree planting. 100 trees will be planted near the April 24 monument, not to mention conferences and exhibitions . We will honor the Armenian culture and our duty.

France has recognized the Armenian Genocide. What should be the next step?

I think that acknowledgment is the first step, but today I expect France to criminalize denial of the Armenian Genocide after adoption of my bill by the National Assembly and the Senate in 2012 which was a step forward in terms of a law on criminalization.  The genocide of 1915 is the second genocide that was recognized by France after Holocaust. The text was adopted in 2001 and was confirmed without raising the question of constitutionality, but did not envisage punishment for denial.

The 2001 law must be supplemented by acknowledgment of the punishment mechanisms. I worked on a new bill that is no longer referring to free expression. This will be an important move forward and will ban tarnishing the memories of thousands of men, women and children who died just because their only crime was being Armenian Christians.

Last year you introduced a bill banning denial of the genocides and crimes against humanity that were committed in the twentieth century. The law has not been adopted yet. Do you think the French parliament will pass the bill this year – on the centennial of the Armenian Genocide?

Back in 2011 I introduced a bill, based on the right of the community to fight against racism and denial of genocides  that were recognized by the French law, including the Armenian Genocide. The bill was passed by all groups of the National Assembly and the Senate on January 23, 2012. Unfortunately, the Constitutional Council overturned it on the grounds that the denial is part of freedom of expression, thus putting an end to this attempt to criminalize denial.

Nevertheless, the possibility of criminalizing denial of all genocides and crimes against humanity echoes the topical problem in the context of persecutions similar to genocides, those targeted at Christians of the Middle East, Yezidis, in particular in Iraq. They were described by Ban Ki-moon as a crime against humanity.

There is obvious need to pass the law in order to offer new characteristics to denial. Therefore, I am working hard to work out an alternative and new version that was a fruit of my work with the leading lawyers, experts on criminal law – Bernard Jouanneau and Sevag Torossian. This is why I suggest that the denial was no longer considered a simple abuse of the freedom of expression, but a crime against humanity.

This offers two advantages: to get out of the legal impasse created by the Constitutional Council in connection with the freedom of expression, and to protect the memory of the victims of all genocides recognized by our legislation.

So, I offer my fellow MPs to sign the legislative mechanism, an apolitical bill that is pursuing the public interest, which is free from party considerations. This text aims to be universal, because it protects all the genocides recognized by French law, and expresses its respect for human rights. This project relates to human dignity. Since October 2014, the law has been available on the website of the National Assembly, and I hope that it will be reviewed in the near future, as this is not only close to my heart, but is especially important for our commitment and our rights.

Hearing into Perincek vs. Switzerland case has been recently held in the European Court of Human Rights. Perincek accused Switzerland of violating his right for freedom of expression. Where do you think is the limit when the priority is not to allow repetition of awful crimes of the past at the same time not violating freedom of speech?

This is not about permitting or banning everything. Freedom of expression, as well as its limitations, must be protected. The law also establishes a framework. Freedom cannot exist without the rule of law, and the government should take responsibility, if necessary, allowing the popular representation to establish the scope and limits of freedom of expression. This freedom is relative, not absolute, and should respect the beliefs and memory of the victims.

The problem is that now the choice of a suitable expression is based on the impact of the media. Alas, in this demagogic approach, the judge is not completely innocent. Thus, the judges in Strasbourg concluded that the denial of the Armenian Genocide had no consequences, and this means that you can allow hurting the victims and their descendants. Again, neither the government, nor even Francois Hollande, who committed himself to introducing punishment for challenging this genocide, did nothing. Not a word!

The question is: who makes the decision regarding the public expression of opinion or what is acceptable to say and what is not? Does a politician have a direct interest? The current government is a consumer of communications not having any problems with showing its inconsistency, until  tweets reach an alarm threshold or the reaction of the population will not limit them.

This is an expectant management, which sorely lacks personality and beliefs, but reflects the state of confusion, where modern France has plunged.

What do you think about Turkish authorities’ initiative to mark the 100th anniversary of Gallipoli events on April 24?

I think I should not express my opinion on Turkish government’s decision to mark or not to mark anything. I do not approve interference. Nevertheless, one must be blind not to see that the state lie hundred years after the events impels the government to continue denial of the crimes up to coming up with a memorial event to disguise the centennial ceremonies. As far as I know, the date of the battle is April 25.

This is a pathetic initiative. However, instead of commenting on what is happening in Turkey, let’s find a voice in France to fulfill our duty to ensure continuation of the 2001 law in order to criminalize denial. Help me so that the bill presented in April 2014 could be considered and adopted by the National Assembly and the Senate in 2015.

We will not yield to threats by the Turks or to any delays because of political and legal reasons in France.

Video: Gagrule.net Interveiw with Professor Siranush Galstyan, Armenian Cinema Book

By

Quick Overview

siranush-bookThis book is the first English language study of Armenian cinema. It is divided into twelve chapters, followed by an appendix on animation.

Chapter 1 explores the birth of cinema in Armenia in 1899 with a screening in Yerevan and provides the setting for the following survey. Chapter 2 is dedicated to the founder of the Armenian cinema, Hamo Beknazaryan, whose work represents an entire era not only of Armenian but also in Soviet cinema, since his name stands alongside those of Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Dovzhenko, and other great filmmakers. Chapter 3 concerns other works created during the silent period in Armenia. Chapter 4 discusses the processes of Armenian cinema in the Stalin era, broadly covering the period from 1930 to 1959. New filmmakers appeared on the stage during those years. The role of the short film genre is mentioned, as well as films that were shelved by Soviet censorship. Chapter 5 analyzes the most significant films for the subsequent rise of Armenian cinema as well as musical films. Chapters 6 and 7 are devoted to prominent filmakers, Sergei Parajanov and Artavazd Peleshyan, subjecting their works to theoretical and morphological analyses

 

Siranush Galstyan

Professor Siranush Galstyan received her degree from the Yerevan State (the former Yerevan State Polytechnic Institute) in 1991. In 1999 she graduated from the School of History of Cinema, Theory and Film Criticism at the Yerevan State Institute of Theater and Cinema. In 2008, she completed her doctoral thesis “Metaphors, Symbols and Allegory in Armenian Cinema,” at the Institute of Arts in the Academy of Sciences of Armenia in Yerevan. Since 1995, she had been contributing critical and theoretical articles to various newspapers and magazines in Armenia. Some of her work has also been published abroad. Beginning in 1999, she has lectured on the History of Film at the Yerevan State Institute of Theater and Cinema and, since 2002, at the Yerevan State University. She has been a member of the FIRESCI since 2000 and the Union of Cinematographers of Armenia since 2007. She has also participated as FIPRESCI jury member at different film festivals.

To order the book contact: Mazda publishers  English Version

 To order the book contact:  book.am                 Armenian Version

Siranush article on Parajanov in Italian magazine CINERGIE http://www.cinergie.it/?p=4879

A Conversation With Bashar al-Assad “Erdogan belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood & the base of al Qaeda”

By

By Jonathan Tepperman

AssadInterview2The civil war in Syria will soon enter its fifth year, with no end in sight. On January 20, Foreign Affairs managing editor Jonathan Tepperman met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus to discuss the conflict in an exclusive interview.

I would like to start by asking you about the war. It has now been going on for almost four years, and you know the statistics: more than 200,000 people have been killed, a million wounded, and more than three million Syrians have fled the country, according to the UN. Your forces have also suffered heavy casualties. The war cannot go on forever. How do you see the war ending?
All wars anywhere in the world have ended with a political solution, because war itself is not the solution; war is one of the instruments of politics. So you end with a political solution. That’s how we see it. That is the headline.

You don’t think that this war will end militarily?
No. Any war ends with a political solution.

ISIS.

Kobani is a small city, with about 50,000 inhabitants. It’s been more than three months since the beginning of the attacks, and they haven’t finished. Same areas, same al Qaeda factions occupying them—the Syrian army liberated in less than three weeks. It means they’re not serious about fighting terrorism.

So are you saying you want greater U.S. involvement in the war against ISIS?

It’s not about greater involvement by the military, because it’s not only about the military; it’s about politics. It’s about how much the United States wants to influence the Turks. Because if the terrorists can withstand the air strikes for this period, it means that the Turks keep sending them armaments and money. Did the United States put any pressure on Turkey to stop the support of al Qaeda? They didn’t; they haven’t. So it’s not only about military involvement. This is first. Second, if you want to talk about the military involvement, American officials publicly acknowledge that without troops on the ground, they cannot achieve anything concrete. Which troops on the grounds are you depending on?

So are you suggesting there should be U.S. troops on the ground?

Not U.S. troops. I’m talking about the principle, the military principle. I’m not saying American troops. If you want to say I want to make war on terrorism, you have to have troops on the ground. The question you have to ask the Americans is, which troops are you going to depend on? Definitely, it has to be Syrian troops. This is our land; this is our country. We are responsible. We don’t ask for American troops at all.

So what would you like to see from the United States? You mentioned more pressure on Turkey …

Pressure on Turkey, pressure on Saudi Arabia, pressure on Qatar to stop supporting the rebels. Second, to make legal cooperation with Syria and start by asking permission from our government to make such attacks. They didn’t, so it’s illegal.

I’m sorry, I’m not clear on that point. You want them to make legal … ?

Of course, if you want to make any kind of action in another country, you ask their permission.

I see. So a formal agreement between Washington and Damascus to allow for air strikes?

The format we can discuss later, but you start with permission. Is it an agreement? Is it a treaty? That’s another issue.

Do you think you will eventually defeat the rebels militarily?

If they don’t have external support, and no, let’s say, supply and recruitment of new terrorists within Syria, there will be no problem defeating them. Even today we don’t have a problem militarily. The problem is that they still have this continuous supply, mainly from Turkey.

So Turkey seems to be the neighbor that you’re most concerned about?

Exactly. Logistically, and about terrorist financing from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but through Turkey.

Do you blame Erdogan personally? This is a man you once had a fairly good relationship with.

Yes. Because he belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood ideology, which is the base of al Qaeda; it was the first political Islamic organization that promoted violent political Islam in the early twentieth century. He belongs strongly and is a staunch believer in these values. He’s very fanatical, and that’s why he still supports ISIS. He is personally responsible for what happened.

Do you see any other potential partners in the region? For example, General el-Sisi in Egypt?

I wouldn’t talk about him personally, but as long as Egypt and the Egyptian army and the government are fighting the same kind of terrorists as in Iraq, of course, we can consider these countries eligible to cooperate with in fighting the same enemy.

Two final questions, if I may. Can you imagine a scenario in which Syria returns to the status quo as it was before the fighting started almost four years ago?

In what sense?

In the sense that Syria is whole again, it is not divided, it controls its borders, it starts to rebuild, and it is at peace and a predominantly secular country.

If you look at a military map now, the Syrian army exists in every corner. Not every place; by every corner, I mean north, south, east, west, and between. If you didn’t believe in a unified Syria, that Syria can go back to its previous position, you wouldn’t send the army there, as a government. If you don’t believe in this as a people, you would have seen people in Syria isolated into different ghettos based on ethnic and sectarian or religious identity. As long as this is not the situation, the people live with each other; the army is everywhere; the army is made up of every color of Syrian society, or the Syrian fabric. This means that we all believe Syria should go back to the way it was. We don’t have any other option, because if it doesn’t go back to its previous position, that will affect every surrounding country. It’s one fabric—it’s a domino effect that will have influence from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

If you were able to deliver a message to President Obama today, what would it be?

I think the normal thing that you ask any official in the world is to work for the interests of his people. And the question I would ask any American is, what do you get from supporting terrorists in our country, in our region? What did you get from supporting the Muslim Brotherhood a few years ago in Egypt and other countries? What did you get from supporting someone like Erdogan? One of the officials from your country asked me seven years ago in Syria at the end of a meeting, “How do you think we can solve the problem in Afghanistan?” I told him, “You have to be able to deal with officials who are not puppets, who can tell you no.” So for the United States, only looking for puppet officials and client states is not how you can serve the interests of your country. You are the greatest power in the world now; you have too many things to disseminate around the world: knowledge, innovation, IT, with its positive repercussions. How can you be the best in these fields yet the worst in the political field? This is a contradiction. That is what I think the American people should analyze and question. Why do you fail in every war? You can create war, you can create problems, but you cannot solve any problem. Twenty years of the peace process in Palestine and Israel, and you cannot do anything with this, in spite of the fact that you are a great country.

But in the context of Syria, what would a better policy look like?

One that preserves stability in the Middle East. Syria is the heart of the Middle East. Everybody knows that. If the Middle East is sick, the whole world will be unstable. In 1991, when we started the peace process, we had a lot of hope. Now, after more than 20 years, things are not at square one; they’re much below that square. So the policy should be to help peace in the region, to fight terrorism, to promote secularism, to support this area economically, to help upgrade the mind and society, like you did in your country. That is the supposed mission of the United States, not to launch wars. Launching war doesn’t make you a great power.

See More: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/interviews/syrias-president-speaks